Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 12/23/2010 9:19 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/23/2010 9:46 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 10:36 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:15 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, Jay wrote:



Mount Hood Meadows has been open for a month and a half!
Unbelievable, light snow for the Cascades this year. This is why I
make my son wear a helmet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv-EX6bgw0
He's big in to Fright Trees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwWqnQj_ozw

You might want to explain to your son that ski helmets, like bike
helmets, are tested and certified only for less than 14 mph impacts.
Watch out for that "I've got a helmet, I'm bulletproof" risk
compensation.

BTW, I was a little hasty saying that I make him wear a helmet,
because I don't generally. He wears his free-ski helmet as a fashion
statement, and he wears his racing helmet as a requirement. In
general, and assuming he is not in the trees or the park, I don't care
whether he wears a helmet because I question the necessity or
effectiveness in soft snow impacts -- and the effect of added moment
to the head. If it is really icy, I might re-think that.

As for risk compensation, he might think twice about skiing tight
trees with no helmet -- but he is a smart kid and does not get in over
is head, helmet or not. At his level, however, there is very little
terrain that is over his head. -- Jay Beattie.

The snow board classes that my son takes require helmets.
For him to work as an instructor, he's required to wear a helmet.
He's grown up snow boarding with a helmet. He's grown up cycling
with one as well. Doesn't occur to him not to wear one, Frank's
mantra of Danger! Danger! notwithstanding.

I don't ski with a helmet but I find snow relatively soft to
fall on. I don't ski in the woods much -at least not intentionally.
Snowboarders do ski in the woods though as well as in snow parks with
slides, rails and jumps. Helmets are required in the snow parks but not
on slopes in general here. There's some movement to make them
mandatory after that actress died in Tremblant on the bunny run but I
doubt it will get anywhere.

Getting back up the slope under one's own power should be made mandatory.


Spoken like a true bent enthusiast.

On 12/23/2010 4:11 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:15 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, Jay wrote:



Mount Hood Meadows has been open for a month and a half!
Unbelievable, light snow for the Cascades this year. This is why I
make my son wear a helmet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv-EX6bgw0
He's big in to Fright Trees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwWqnQj_ozw

You might want to explain to your son that ski helmets, like bike
helmets, are tested and certified only for less than 14 mph impacts.
Watch out for that "I've got a helmet, I'm bulletproof" risk
compensation.

- Frank Krygowski

Yeah, good point. That's huge a problem everywhere - kids head butting
trees at 30 mph or so because they think their helmet makes it safe.
Anything else we should all know from your skiing expertise?

And as with cycling helmets, since a helmet may not help with a direct
head butt at 30mph it cannot possibly help when the kid falls on the
snow board rail and hits his head.
Oh wait, he wouldn't have hit his head without the extra inch of helmet...

On 12/23/2010 9:40 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/23/2010 10:16 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
On 12/23/2010 6:29 AM, landotter wrote:

snip

I find the term AHZ to be telling. Zealotry is something that flies in
the face of evidence, not a calm attitude that explains clear
statistics. Zealotry is enthusiasm for a device disproportionate to
its efficacy.

Zealotry in the bike helmet world is really best expressed by what I
call the "concern troll". It's not about cycling, but about being smug.

The problem with zealotry is that it's so often counter-productive
because those able to present a calm and reasoned argument are taken
seriously, while zealots, even if they actually had a factual basis for
their position, are dismissed as lunatics.

Scharf's promotion of Foam Bicycle Hats™ is beyond lunacy.

The fact that many states have repealed or weakened mandatory helmet
laws for motorcyclists, based on the argument that adults should be able
to choose whether or not to use safety equipment, shows the success of
arguments based on facts and logic.

Those that lack critical thinking skills might be taken in by the
presenter at the TED conference. That type of forum, with no chance for
anyone to present facts or challenge the presenter is perfect for AHZs.
After watching it I'm not sure if the presenter is simply clueless, or
intentionally presenting incorrect data and conclusions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

Scharf's Liddite™ promotion is full of the latter.


How do you read this as his promotion of helmets? Sounds like he's
against mandatory laws. Anyone saying that helmets are not totally
without merit seems to get you guys going.

On 12/24/2010 6:10 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

How do you read this as his promotion of helmets? Sounds like he's
against mandatory laws. Anyone saying that helmets are not totally
without merit seems to get you guys going.

LOL, I'm the last person in favor of forcing people to use safety
equipment. I don't think seat belts should be mandatory either, at least
for adults. I was part of a group of leaders of our bike club that was
going to stop leading rides if the club imposed a helmet requirement,
and they dropped the idea (until the club could no longer get insurance
unless they imposed a helmet requirement).

What I despise is the habit of the AHZs to resort to junk science and
statistics in a vain attempt to try to justify their position. Every
scientifically sound study on bicycle helmets shows a reduction in
injuries and fatalities when the rider is involved in a head-impact
crash. Everywhere where helmet usage has increased, whether it was
because of education or compulsion, the number of injuries and
fatalities has fallen, even as ridership has increased.

When someone says "The scientific community has been completely split
for years on the subject 50-50, down the middle," when not a single
member of the scientific community has ever disputed the effectiveness
of helmets, shows the level to which the AHZs will sink.

On Dec 24, 9:00*am, Duane Hébert wrote:

[Frank is] demanding quotes again up thread.

Yes, I'll do that when you blatantly lie about what I've said.

You could, of course, show a little class by retracting.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:00 am, Duane wrote:

[Frank is] demanding quotes again up thread.

Yes, I'll do that when you blatantly lie about what I've said.

You could, of course, show a little class by retracting.

You cut the part that included the information.
You never directly say things like this. You imply
it with your innuendo and then you demand quotes
of exact language. Telling him that he should
tell his son that ski helmets are only tested at
14 mph impacts is supposed to achieve what then?


Class is something that you have no idea of. People
with class don't insult and humiliate those with
different opinions.

I would tell you to not bother replying but I don't
expect that it would work.

On Dec 24, 12:47*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 9:00 am, Duane H *wrote:

[Frank is] demanding quotes again up thread.

Yes, I'll do that when *you blatantly lie about what I've said.

You could, of course, show a little class by retracting.

You cut the part that included the information.
You never directly say things like this. You imply
it with your innuendo and then you demand quotes
of exact language. *Telling him that he should
tell his son that ski helmets are only tested at
14 mph impacts is supposed to achieve what then?

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

There was no place that I tried to have Jay talk his son out of
wearing a helmet, despite your blatant lie.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 24, 10:11 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:47 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:



On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 9:00 am, Duane H wrote:

[Frank is] demanding quotes again up thread.

Yes, I'll do that when you blatantly lie about what I've said.

You could, of course, show a little class by retracting.

You cut the part that included the information.
You never directly say things like this. You imply
it with your innuendo and then you demand quotes
of exact language. Telling him that he should
tell his son that ski helmets are only tested at
14 mph impacts is supposed to achieve what then?

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

There was no place that I tried to have Jay talk his son out of
wearing a helmet, despite your blatant lie.


You ridicule those who say they place any value on the protective
capability of bicycle helmets. The effect - if they gave a rat's ass
what you think - is to discourage them from wearing one.

On 12/24/2010 10:18 AM, Dan O wrote:

You ridicule those who say they place any value on the protective
capability of bicycle helmets. The effect - if they gave a rat's ass
what you think - is to discourage them from wearing one.

The scary thing to me is not the trash he posts here but that someone so
ignorant of science, statistics, and math is actually a college professor!

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 12:47 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You cut the part that included the information.
You never directly say things like this. You imply
it with your innuendo and then you demand quotes
of exact language. Telling him that he should
tell his son that ski helmets are only tested at
14 mph impacts is supposed to achieve what then?

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge. What
were those credentials again?

There was no place that I tried to have Jay talk his son out of
wearing a helmet, despite your blatant lie.

Maybe I'm just used to being harangued by you and imbued
your intent based on countless ridiculous claims and insults.

You're right. I should not do that. That would be like assuming
that someone was stupid or a coward for not agreeing with my
opinion. It would be like telling someone that if they were too
stupid to agree with my vision of cycling or to afraid to do so that they
should
give up cycling. That would be ridiculous.

But I shouldn't bother talking to you either.