Shimano Headset

On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:05:18 -0400, wrote:

And as I stated earlier, only a TOTAL IDIOT would take extra chances
just because he's wearing a helmet

One day I happened to be standing in the store when a father bought
his son his first bicycle helmet.

Child: Oh boy! Now I can ram my head into things!

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 5/16/2017 5:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the fact that helmets are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet, particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in snow, etc.

And for those who don't believe in risk compensation: The subtext in
Jay's sentence is that if you're going to ride in snow, wet descents or
dirt trails, a helmet is justifiable.

Would you ride those conditions without a helmet?

Yes, if I forgot my helmet and had to get to or from work. I wouldn't choose not to wear a helmet. I might walk a trail section rather than riding it without a helmet, but who knows. I'm not a skilled trail rider.

Think about what you said. You might walk it if you forgot your helmet.
But you ride it because you have a helmet. That is classic risk
compensation: You're willing to take on more risk because you feel
there's some protection. Isn't that obvious?

If not, then you are conclusively demonstrating risk compensation -
adopting more risk because of the presence of a "safety" measure.

I'm not taking any more risk than I would without a helmet.

Your sentence above disproves that.

I'm just reducing my existing risk.

Compared to not riding the section in question, which is the alternative
you proposed? I don't think that's what you really mean.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:41:29 PM UTC-4, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:05:18 -0400, wrote:

And as I stated earlier, only a TOTAL IDIOT would take extra chances
just because he's wearing a helmet

One day I happened to be standing in the store when a father bought
his son his first bicycle helmet.

Child: Oh boy! Now I can ram my head into things!

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

So what. I saw a soldier litrally lose his head because the concussion from a nearby exploding shell lifted his helmeted head off his body. Does that mean that no soldier should wear a helmet?

Helmets can help but no one here that I know of is saying that a bicycle helmet will protect in every case.

I know of a case in Toronto Canada many years sgo where there was a collision between a couple of bicyclists and a car iirc near Leslie and lakeshore. The helmet wearing bicyclit died, the one not wearing a helmet survived and the car was totalled. We can all find instance where a helmet helped mitigate injuries n a crash and where the bicyclist was able to get up and continue the ride without needing first aid let alone a trip to the hospital. Many of us also know of crashes where the damage to the bicyclsit was so great that the bicyclist died anyway even though a helmet was worn.

If you want to wear a helmet then fine. If you don't want to wear a helmet then that's fine too. But to tell people that a helmet does no good at all or that wearing a helmet increase the riders' risk taking is simply NOT true in most cases.

In fact a lot of people would not ride a bicycle in traffic if they weren't wearing a helmet. Why? Because they wear the helmet for that just in case moment. And with the idiotic design of many bicycling infrastructures and with the increasing numbers of distracted drivers and of drivers suffering road rage that just in case moment can come at any time.

Cheers

On 5/16/2017 4:35 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

You have not explained why you think such
a comparison should be made ONLY for
bicyclists. After all, it's not like
bicyclists are a large portion of
TBI victims.

Isn't the question "do helmets help bikers
in accidents?"

That may be your question. To me, it misses a lot by accepting unstated
assumptions.

My question is "Should helmets be recommended for cyclists?" It's a
bigger question. Certainly, if helmets fail your test, they should not
be recommended. But if helmets are not needed simply because cycling's
risk is too low, then we don't even need to get around to your test.

And all the data I've found shows that cycling's risks are indeed too
low to worry about helmets.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/16/2017 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Because you require a base line with which to
strike comparisons.

Shouldn't the comparison be helmet vs.
no helmet on biker in accident with
head injuries?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle accidents are never reported since they have no severe injuries. And they do not list whether or not a serious injury was wearing a helmet and hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else.

What we do know is that from zero helmet use to almost universal use by sports riders there has been no change in injuries. If that isn't good enough for you then perhaps you can gather the statistics.

I wonder if Emanuel has looked at TBI data for the Tour de France.
Roughly 100 years, typically hundreds of riders per year, doing
thousands of miles, in the most grueling conditions, and for almost its
entire history without helmets.

Where was the plague of serious brain injuries?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/16/2017 4:34 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Similarly, I've given talks to bike clubs and
community groups on the topic of bike safety.
I've asked "What percentage of America's
brain injury deaths do you think are caused
by bike crashes?" I've had an entire room
full of people agree that its about 30
percent. The actual figure is about 0.6%.

Every injury to the head following an accident
which involves a bike should be analyzed and
booked with some rough scale of graveness say
from 1-10 where 1 is a scratch and 4 is
a dislocated jaw and 10 is death (just
examples, the system would have to be agreed
upon by a group of experts). Then the data
would be analyzed. Also the helmet should be
analyzed, or what is left of it, to get an
estimate if it helped or not. All this
parameterized into a computer to do graphs
and charts.

Wonderful. But it's never going to happen. Why? Because contrary to
the current myth, there are simply not enough bicycle TBI cases to make
it worthwhile. Remember, in the U.S. about 99.4% of TBI fatalities have
nothing to do with bicycling. About 99% of all hospital treated TBIs
have nothing to do with bicycling.

The only people who would consider funding such a study are those
selling helmets. And they don't need that - the current paranoia is
working just fine for them.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:26:03 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Because you require a base line with which to
strike comparisons.

Shouldn't the comparison be helmet vs.
no helmet on biker in accident with
head injuries?
ALL thatb information is available on different pages of the websites
I listed previously.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:30:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 2:26 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Because you require a base line with which to
strike comparisons.

Shouldn't the comparison be helmet vs.
no helmet on biker in accident with
head injuries?

You have not explained why you think such a comparison should be made
ONLY for bicyclists. After all, it's not like bicyclists are a large
portion of TBI victims.
Dutch TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURYINJURY data.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0110905

Cyclists represent 10 times as many TBIs (56.9%) as pedestrians (only
5.3%), about 5 times as many as Mopeds (12.2%), more than 3 times as
many as motor vehicle occupants (16.5 for automobiles and 5.1% for
scooters), a total of 56.9% of all traffic related TBIs. Traffic TBIs
comprise 33.4 % of all TBIs in the Netherlands, with home and leisure
comprising 48%, sports other than cycling 8.2%,Occupoational injuries
2.9%, asaults 6.6, self mutilation .5% and other .5%.

I think that discountts Frank's assertions - particularly for the
VERY cycle-centric nation of the Netherlands, where cycle helmets are
not required.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0110905
gives the costs incurred.


an outline of the study generating this data is as follows:


Methods

This study included data on all TBI patients who were treated at an
Emergency Department (ED - National Injury Surveillance System),
hospitalized (National Medical Registration), or died due to their
injuries in the Netherlands between 2010–2012. Direct healthcare costs
and indirect costs were determined using the incidence-based Dutch
Burden of Injury Model. Disease burden was assessed by calculating
years of life lost (YLL) owing to premature death, years lived with
disability (YLD) and DALYs. Incidence, costs and disease burden were
stratified by age and gender.


Results

TBI incidence was 213.6 per 100,000 person years. Total costs were
€314.6 (USD $433.8) million per year and disease burden resulted in
171,200 DALYs (on average 7.1 DALYs per case). Men had highest mean
costs per case (€19,540 versus €14,940), driven by indirect costs.
0–24-year-olds had high incidence and disease burden but low economic
costs, whereas 25–64-year-olds had relatively low incidence but high
economic costs. Patients aged 65+ had highest incidence, leading to
considerable direct healthcare costs. 0–24-year-olds, men aged 25–64
years, traffic injury victims (especially bicyclists) and home and
leisure injury victims (especially 0–5-year-old and elderly fallers)
are identified as risk groups in TBI.


Conclusions

The economic and health consequences of TBI are substantial. The
integrated approach of assessing incidence, costs and disease burden
enables detection of important risk groups in TBI, development of
prevention programs that target these risk groups and assessment of
the benefits of these programs


NOTE:: This is NOT a study of helmet use, or cycling, so there is no
reason for results to be skewed against cycling without helmets ....

Chew on that for a while, Frank - - - -

On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:43:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the fact that helmets are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet, particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in snow, etc.

And for those who don't believe in risk compensation: The subtext in
Jay's sentence is that if you're going to ride in snow, wet descents or
dirt trails, a helmet is justifiable.

Would you ride those conditions without a helmet?

If not, then you are conclusively demonstrating risk compensation -
adopting more risk because of the presence of a "safety" measure.
I know guys who ride in the wet and the snow all the time without
helmets - and on gravel roads in the rain too. Are they particularly
smart? I wouldn't say so. Is it smart to do the same with a helmet?
Not particularly - but testosterone will do strange things to some men
- - -

On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:45:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 1:06 PM, Duane wrote:
On 16/05/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
IMO, the fact that helmets
are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating
helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet,
particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in
snow, etc.


Or apparently those who ride with a group containing a member trying to
channel Chris Froome.

As I've written in articles for our club's newsletter, I think it's
important to stay well away from certain riders. I've seen bad riders
take out good riders.
I'm sure you've seen what you would have considered good riders, up
untill the incident, take out other good and not so good riders too.