#181
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 - - - - |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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 - - - |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) | Joerg[_2_] | Techniques | 34 | June 8th 16 03:04 PM |
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset | retrofan | Marketplace | 0 | August 14th 08 04:41 AM |
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset | LawBoy01 | Marketplace | 2 | August 14th 08 12:02 AM |
Installing shimano 105 headset | Neil Smith | UK | 1 | November 7th 07 05:49 PM |
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset | retrofan | Marketplace | 0 | July 6th 07 11:14 PM |