Will e-bikes expand cycling?

On 11/7/2019 9:54 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:04:16 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/7/2019 8:47 AM, sms wrote:
On 11/6/2019 3:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2019 5:16 PM, Bertrand wrote:
But despite decades of gains in percentage of helmet use,
bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen, over 60% in
fifteen years or so. That increase completely outstrips
any purported rise in riding levels.

Maybe the number of REPORTED concussions has gone up, but
that doesn't say much about the actual number of
concussions.Â* In the U.S., at least, there's much more
awareness now of concussions, and they're diagnosed much
more frequently than in the past (we used to just say
someone "got his bell rung" or "got the wind knocked out of
him").Â* Look at how many more high school and pro athletes
are now diagnosed with concussions.Â* So I don't think an
increase in reported bicycle concussions leads to any valid
conclusion about helmet effectiveness. You'd need, for a
start, to compare cycling to other sports.

+1

Correct. Taking one piece of data, totally out of context, is
unhelpful but unfortunately it's a common occurrence--sometimes done
intentionally, sometimes done due to ignorance.

The number of actual concussions overall could have gone down as
well, since with better protective equipment you don't see reports
of things that never happened. Counting ER visits is a particularly
poor way of judging the effect of ER visits.

Asking ER doctors and nurses about the comparative severity of
injuries of the patients they attend to, based on whether or not
they were using protective equipment, has at least some validity
though there's a large subset that they never see because the
protective equipment has made it unnecessary.

We have in our family a recently retired emergency room physician. He
practiced for many years in a state that imposed a mandatory helmet
law for kids. He says rather emphatically that the law made no
difference.

Unsurprisingly, medical professionals are big proponents of bicycle
helmets, and they probably aren't being paid by the helmet industry
for their views. They aren't out there saying dumb things to
discourage helmet use either, i.e. calling them "foam hats." Our
resident AHZs could learn something if they were willing to look at
the facts.

I believe I've posted more facts and data than anyone here on this issue.

But yes, it's true that there are medicos who have jumped on the MHL
bandwagon, to one degree or another. I've asked several, and every one
has admitted that bicyclists comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of the
TBI cases they've seen. None has ever given a cogent response as to
why so much nagging should be directed at bicyclists, when many other
activities cause so much more TBI.

And to be clear, I've known and still know doctors who are helmet skeptics.

Are they openly skeptical when talking to patients, during a consultation?

Oddly enough, I've never been in the examination room when a doctor has been
talking with a patient - except my kids and my wife.

But our doctors have all known we were cyclists. None ever mentioned helmets,
IIRC.

Yours?

My previous doctor did ask if I used a helmet. When I said I didn't he
offered to send me papers on the helmet question via email. He never
did, presumably because he did not want to leak his own address. He
did send me some abstracts printed from medline by snail mail, and
didn't mention it again.

My current doctor has never asked about helmets, although he did ask if
I had firearms in my home.

I've never gotten the helmet question or the firearm question.

It occurs to me, one of our adult kid's best friends is an MD. She knows
the grandkids ride without helmets. She's apparently stated no objections.

From what I've seen, the typical kid's healthy use of a bicycle is to
jump on and ride 1/4 mile to Johnny's house. Five minutes later, both
kids jump on to ride to Sammy's house to play on the swings. Then they
ride back to get a snack. Then they ride 1/8 mile to see if Freddie is
home. Maybe they'll ride all the way around the block for fun; but maybe
they'll stop and look for frogs, then run through the woods a bit.

In real life, that's a LOT of putting a helmet on, then taking a helmet
off. So in a lot of cases, the helmet isn't even considered.

In other cases, with stricter parents, bikes are used only rarely, when
mom carefully shepherds the kids on a short, boring ride.

We have one like that in our neighborhood. The mom walks the dog. The
kid doesn't even get the joy of riding at bicycle pace.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:24:22 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

Protocols vary. I got up and walked out when asked 'are
there firearms in your home?'. Who died and made you King?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I snap, "Speak English, man. If you can," in the tone those jerks aspire to, and get no more backchat from them.

AJ

On 11/7/2019 11:26 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 22:20:26 UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 03:57:11 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:


The average age of the members of my bicycle club is precisely 70, and
next year it will be precisely 71. But I can't find this fact on
Wikipedia.

wikipedia long ago savged posts where n=1. Did yours go then.

Snip ad-hominen that some claims he never does.

Andre Jute The pushy little man probably thinks he's clever

Who disagrees that that is a valid comment about AJ.

I figured that Jute is a Troll and now I just ignore him.

I suspect he may be worse. He may be trying to destroy this discussion
group, out of pure assholeship.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/7/2019 9:54 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:04:16 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/7/2019 8:47 AM, sms wrote:
On 11/6/2019 3:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2019 5:16 PM, Bertrand wrote:
But despite decades of gains in percentage of helmet use,
bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen, over 60% in
fifteen years or so. That increase completely outstrips
any purported rise in riding levels.

Maybe the number of REPORTED concussions has gone up, but
that doesn't say much about the actual number of
concussions.Â* In the U.S., at least, there's much more
awareness now of concussions, and they're diagnosed much
more frequently than in the past (we used to just say
someone "got his bell rung" or "got the wind knocked out of
him").Â* Look at how many more high school and pro athletes
are now diagnosed with concussions.Â* So I don't think an
increase in reported bicycle concussions leads to any valid
conclusion about helmet effectiveness. You'd need, for a
start, to compare cycling to other sports.

+1

Correct. Taking one piece of data, totally out of context, is
unhelpful but unfortunately it's a common occurrence--sometimes done
intentionally, sometimes done due to ignorance.

The number of actual concussions overall could have gone down as
well, since with better protective equipment you don't see reports
of things that never happened. Counting ER visits is a particularly
poor way of judging the effect of ER visits.

Asking ER doctors and nurses about the comparative severity of
injuries of the patients they attend to, based on whether or not
they were using protective equipment, has at least some validity
though there's a large subset that they never see because the
protective equipment has made it unnecessary.

We have in our family a recently retired emergency room physician. He
practiced for many years in a state that imposed a mandatory helmet
law for kids. He says rather emphatically that the law made no
difference.

Unsurprisingly, medical professionals are big proponents of bicycle
helmets, and they probably aren't being paid by the helmet industry
for their views. They aren't out there saying dumb things to
discourage helmet use either, i.e. calling them "foam hats." Our
resident AHZs could learn something if they were willing to look at
the facts.

I believe I've posted more facts and data than anyone here on this issue.

But yes, it's true that there are medicos who have jumped on the MHL
bandwagon, to one degree or another. I've asked several, and every one
has admitted that bicyclists comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of the
TBI cases they've seen. None has ever given a cogent response as to
why so much nagging should be directed at bicyclists, when many other
activities cause so much more TBI.

And to be clear, I've known and still know doctors who are helmet skeptics.

Are they openly skeptical when talking to patients, during a consultation?

Oddly enough, I've never been in the examination room when a doctor has been
talking with a patient - except my kids and my wife.

But our doctors have all known we were cyclists. None ever mentioned helmets,
IIRC.

Yours?

My previous doctor did ask if I used a helmet. When I said I didn't he
offered to send me papers on the helmet question via email. He never
did, presumably because he did not want to leak his own address. He
did send me some abstracts printed from medline by snail mail, and
didn't mention it again.

My current doctor has never asked about helmets, although he did ask if
I had firearms in my home.

I've never gotten the helmet question or the firearm question.

Every been asked if you feel safe going home? That's a frequent one
these days.

It occurs to me, one of our adult kid's best friends is an MD. She
knows the grandkids ride without helmets. She's apparently stated no
objections.

I was wondering whether an MD *with her doctor hat on* might be
reluctant to recommend dispensing with a helmet. Peer pressure backed
up by possible lawsuits is a powerful force.

I suspect that my doctor had not ridden a bike since before helmets were
fashionable when he asked me whether I did. Nevertheless, he felt
qualified, and perhaps even required, to lecture me on them.

From what I've seen, the typical kid's healthy use of a bicycle is to
jump on and ride 1/4 mile to Johnny's house. Five minutes later, both
kids jump on to ride to Sammy's house to play on the swings. Then they
ride back to get a snack. Then they ride 1/8 mile to see if Freddie is
home. Maybe they'll ride all the way around the block for fun; but
maybe they'll stop and look for frogs, then run through the woods a
bit.

In real life, that's a LOT of putting a helmet on, then taking a
helmet off. So in a lot of cases, the helmet isn't even considered.

In other cases, with stricter parents, bikes are used only rarely,
when mom carefully shepherds the kids on a short, boring ride.

We have one like that in our neighborhood. The mom walks the dog. The
kid doesn't even get the joy of riding at bicycle pace.

--

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:03:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:52:45 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2019 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:

A perusal of auto repair fora would show problems on modern vehicles for
which, unlike the neat theory Mr Lieberman notes above, multiple pricey
components, each with their own delivery delay and labor, fail to
rectify the problem.

A good friend of mine had trouble with his Buick recently. As I recall,
no cranking, no lights, nothing. Jump starting didn't help. Replacing
the battery didn't help. All fuses were good, etc. He gave up and had it
towed to an independent mechanic, who was similarly baffled.

After about a week, the solution was found. Seems that in the rear
bumper was a backup collision sensor (maybe radar based?) to keep you
from bumping into a telephone pole or something. The sensor had somehow
failed due to some water leakage. But it disabled the whole #@&%! car!

When I was 16 years old my folks retired their old 1937 chevy and
bought a new car. I inherited the old car with the agreement that my
father would pay the insurance and registration and I could drive the
car but had to buy my own gasoline and keep the beast running. At the
age of 16 I could fix anything on the car. We just bought a new car
for my wife and I opened the hood and looked in and I'm not sure where
to check the oil :-(
--
cheers,

John B.

You don't have to check the oil, it has a sensor for it....pfff
Just wanted to mount my winter tires on my new second hand 2017 car. Damn the tires have a wireless pressure sensor built in the valve, so now I have two options for my winter tires: 1. leave as it is and get a tire pressure warning every time I start the car (you can't disable the 'Reifendruck Uberwachung') or also have pressure sensors put in my winter tires/rims; 50 euro a piece...

Lou

I know absolutely nothing about tire pressure sensors but I thought
that they were part of the valve stem, in some manner, which is a
separate part on the wheels on my car.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 11/8/2019 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:03:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:52:45 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2019 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:

A perusal of auto repair fora would show problems on modern vehicles for
which, unlike the neat theory Mr Lieberman notes above, multiple pricey
components, each with their own delivery delay and labor, fail to
rectify the problem.

A good friend of mine had trouble with his Buick recently. As I recall,
no cranking, no lights, nothing. Jump starting didn't help. Replacing
the battery didn't help. All fuses were good, etc. He gave up and had it
towed to an independent mechanic, who was similarly baffled.

After about a week, the solution was found. Seems that in the rear
bumper was a backup collision sensor (maybe radar based?) to keep you
from bumping into a telephone pole or something. The sensor had somehow
failed due to some water leakage. But it disabled the whole #@&%! car!

When I was 16 years old my folks retired their old 1937 chevy and
bought a new car. I inherited the old car with the agreement that my
father would pay the insurance and registration and I could drive the
car but had to buy my own gasoline and keep the beast running. At the
age of 16 I could fix anything on the car. We just bought a new car
for my wife and I opened the hood and looked in and I'm not sure where
to check the oil :-(
--
cheers,

John B.

You don't have to check the oil, it has a sensor for it....pfff
Just wanted to mount my winter tires on my new second hand 2017 car. Damn the tires have a wireless pressure sensor built in the valve, so now I have two options for my winter tires: 1. leave as it is and get a tire pressure warning every time I start the car (you can't disable the 'Reifendruck Uberwachung') or also have pressure sensors put in my winter tires/rims; 50 euro a piece...

Lou

I know absolutely nothing about tire pressure sensors but I thought
that they were part of the valve stem, in some manner, which is a
separate part on the wheels on my car.

They're pretty large compared to a valve stem.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tire...w=1143&bih=699

My car monitors variations in wheel rotation instead.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:44:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/8/2019 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:03:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:52:45 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2019 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:

A perusal of auto repair fora would show problems on modern vehicles for
which, unlike the neat theory Mr Lieberman notes above, multiple pricey
components, each with their own delivery delay and labor, fail to
rectify the problem.

A good friend of mine had trouble with his Buick recently. As I recall,
no cranking, no lights, nothing. Jump starting didn't help. Replacing
the battery didn't help. All fuses were good, etc. He gave up and had it
towed to an independent mechanic, who was similarly baffled.

After about a week, the solution was found. Seems that in the rear
bumper was a backup collision sensor (maybe radar based?) to keep you
from bumping into a telephone pole or something. The sensor had somehow
failed due to some water leakage. But it disabled the whole #@&%! car!

When I was 16 years old my folks retired their old 1937 chevy and
bought a new car. I inherited the old car with the agreement that my
father would pay the insurance and registration and I could drive the
car but had to buy my own gasoline and keep the beast running. At the
age of 16 I could fix anything on the car. We just bought a new car
for my wife and I opened the hood and looked in and I'm not sure where
to check the oil :-(
--
cheers,

John B.

You don't have to check the oil, it has a sensor for it....pfff
Just wanted to mount my winter tires on my new second hand 2017 car. Damn the tires have a wireless pressure sensor built in the valve, so now I have two options for my winter tires: 1. leave as it is and get a tire pressure warning every time I start the car (you can't disable the 'Reifendruck Uberwachung') or also have pressure sensors put in my winter tires/rims; 50 euro a piece...

Lou

I know absolutely nothing about tire pressure sensors but I thought
that they were part of the valve stem, in some manner, which is a
separate part on the wheels on my car.

They're pretty large compared to a valve stem.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tire...w=1143&bih=699

My car monitors variations in wheel rotation instead.

I suppose that I am a cynic but I can see no use at all for tire
pressure monitors, or for back up radar for that matter. Oh well, I
suppose it eliminates the need to turn one's head when walking by the
car, or backing up. Or maybe one might say, "to pay attention to what
one is going" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 11/9/2019 6:20 PM, John B. wrote:

I suppose that I am a cynic but I can see no use at all for tire
pressure monitors, or for back up radar for that matter. Oh well, I
suppose it eliminates the need to turn one's head when walking by the
car, or backing up. Or maybe one might say, "to pay attention to what
one is going" :-)

My experience with the TPM system:

Again, mine monitors wheel rotation speed, which makes more sense to me.
The system is there for anti-lock brakes anyway, so why not use it?

Anyway, the Mazda 3 seems to have a problem with rear disc brakes. Front
were fine but rear were worn at maybe 40,000 miles. I replaced them,
after a little trouble getting pads. (Two brake sources, different pads,
mine the less common by far.)

The replacement pads seemed slightly tight going in. After some short
time, I got a "Tire Pressure" alert while driving, but pressures looked
fine. However, right rear disc was HOT. The pads were dragging enough to
slow that wheel and trigger a warning. I pulled the pads, ground the
edges that contacted the caliper, lubricated with anti-seize and all was
good. I later repeated for the other rear wheel.

Regarding rear radar (or better, a camera): This hatchback has terrible
rear visibility. Despite creeping super-slowly, while backing and
turning out of a very tight parking place I scratched my plastic bumper.
A light post's concrete pedestal was in my blind spot the entire way. I
was embarrassed and disappointed; I hadn't damaged a car for over 50
years. I'd install a backup camera now, but all I've looked at seemed
kind of clunky.

BTW, the 1990 Honda Civic Wagon I sold a couple years ago had excellent
visibility in all directions. That's part of why I called it the
pinnacle of automotive evolution. ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:52:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/9/2019 6:20 PM, John B. wrote:

I suppose that I am a cynic but I can see no use at all for tire
pressure monitors, or for back up radar for that matter. Oh well, I
suppose it eliminates the need to turn one's head when walking by the
car, or backing up. Or maybe one might say, "to pay attention to what
one is going" :-)

My experience with the TPM system:

Again, mine monitors wheel rotation speed, which makes more sense to me.
The system is there for anti-lock brakes anyway, so why not use it?

Anyway, the Mazda 3 seems to have a problem with rear disc brakes. Front
were fine but rear were worn at maybe 40,000 miles. I replaced them,
after a little trouble getting pads. (Two brake sources, different pads,
mine the less common by far.)

The replacement pads seemed slightly tight going in. After some short
time, I got a "Tire Pressure" alert while driving, but pressures looked
fine. However, right rear disc was HOT. The pads were dragging enough to
slow that wheel and trigger a warning. I pulled the pads, ground the
edges that contacted the caliper, lubricated with anti-seize and all was
good. I later repeated for the other rear wheel.

Something seems funny here. The brake dragged so the wheel slowed
down? Was the tire skidding along the ground?

Regarding rear radar (or better, a camera): This hatchback has terrible
rear visibility. Despite creeping super-slowly, while backing and
turning out of a very tight parking place I scratched my plastic bumper.
A light post's concrete pedestal was in my blind spot the entire way. I
was embarrassed and disappointed; I hadn't damaged a car for over 50
years. I'd install a backup camera now, but all I've looked at seemed
kind of clunky.

BTW, the 1990 Honda Civic Wagon I sold a couple years ago had excellent
visibility in all directions. That's part of why I called it the
pinnacle of automotive evolution. ;-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 11/9/2019 7:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:52:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/9/2019 6:20 PM, John B. wrote:

I suppose that I am a cynic but I can see no use at all for tire
pressure monitors, or for back up radar for that matter. Oh well, I
suppose it eliminates the need to turn one's head when walking by the
car, or backing up. Or maybe one might say, "to pay attention to what
one is going" :-)

My experience with the TPM system:

Again, mine monitors wheel rotation speed, which makes more sense to me.
The system is there for anti-lock brakes anyway, so why not use it?

Anyway, the Mazda 3 seems to have a problem with rear disc brakes. Front
were fine but rear were worn at maybe 40,000 miles. I replaced them,
after a little trouble getting pads. (Two brake sources, different pads,
mine the less common by far.)

The replacement pads seemed slightly tight going in. After some short
time, I got a "Tire Pressure" alert while driving, but pressures looked
fine. However, right rear disc was HOT. The pads were dragging enough to
slow that wheel and trigger a warning. I pulled the pads, ground the
edges that contacted the caliper, lubricated with anti-seize and all was
good. I later repeated for the other rear wheel.

Something seems funny here. The brake dragged so the wheel slowed
down? Was the tire skidding along the ground?

Not skidding in a noticeable way, certainly. The event happened at night
on dark country roads, so when I got the alert, I didn't stop. Instead I
felt for odd behavior when turning or when I swerved a bit as a test.
(In the past, I've been able to detect a low tire that way on other cars.)

I felt no difference, which I took to mean the low pressure was minor.
(I don't know the threshold for the warning light.) But when I came to a
business with a yard light I stopped to check it out. The problem was
intermittent, because the rotor was cool 15 miles later at home.

Tires actually "creep" a bit against a road surface, from the deflection
of the rubber as it applies force to the road. I think the braking
torque from the stuck pad generated enough creep to show up as a slower
rotation.

The details of the system might interest Jeff and others. If you think
about it, differences in rotational speed must be ignored when driving
long sweeping curves. Maybe it looks for one out of three differences,
or maybe it looks at differences that remain over a certain window of time.

BTW, the system must be reset when tires are rotated, as I did two weeks
ago. To me, that says it's pretty sensitive to the differences in
rotational speed. Tire diameters aren't widely different when moderately
worn.


--
- Frank Krygowski