Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But...

On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote:

Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies.

By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour
de France.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg

http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg

http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg

etc., etc.

The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff.

Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff
involved.


By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory...

Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003."

but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes...

I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of
correcting Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2019 2:06 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:06:31 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 2/18/2019 3:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:46:45 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Why allow bikes on roads in the first place? They're dangerous!

Why allow people to ride on devices with top speeds in excess of 70mph with no license, no training and no supervision!

Bicycles should have airbags, collision avoidance systems, back-up cameras and ABS! They should be subject to rigorous regulation with mandatory licensing, registration and driver-training -- and mandatory insurance. With high limits! Bicycles are a terror! https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-press

To quote Punch Magazine:

"Every cyclist to be presumed in all legal proceedings to be a reckless idiot, and on the wrong side of the road, unless he can bring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

and

Nobody to cycle without a license, issued by the Governor of Newgate, after a fortnight’s strict examination (on bread and water) in elementary mechanics, advanced hydrostatics and riding on the head down an inclined plane.

and

When a cyclist on any road sees, or has reason to believe that he might see if he chose to look, any horse, cart, carriage, gig or other vehicle, or any pedestrian approaching, he (or she) to instantly dismount, run the machine into the nearest ditch, and kneel in a humble and supplicating attitude till said horse, cart &c., has got at least a mile away."


Your bike privilege is showing. You've got some bike-splaining to do!

-- Jay Beattie.


*ahem* the Paved Roads movement was instigated by CTC
(England) and LAW (USA), so who's the interloper on whose
roads again?

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

Chalo once made the killer point that cyclists are the predominant form of transport on the roads because the cyclist does not need the permission of an official license for either himself or his bike, whereas a motorist needs a license both for himself and for his car. That is possibly a reflection of who was originally behind the paved roads.

Andre Jute
A little history will usually supply the answer

The ancient Mesopotamians? Which paved roads? The early Good Roads movement in the US was animated by bicyclists, but the real road building was for cars -- funded by license and registration fees and then gas taxes. We bicyclists love to take credit for paved roads, but that's basically wishful thinking. For a history of the Oregon Movement: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads, nor is it in the Bible or based on the "rights of man" or "natural rights" (whatever those might be). A local legislature could just say "No bikes . . . too annoying. Thank you. Come again." Check your bike privilege.

The reference looks very interesting (history of Oregon Good Roads
movement). But as to rights to the road, I thought I had read on RBT
some years back about there being some basis in English common law.

A quick google found this:
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...04/jones07.htm

I'll admit I didn't read carefully enough to see what main point it was
discussing, it may be something about easements, but in it I found:

"In Rankine, The Law of Land, Ownership in Scotland, 4th ed. (1909), p.
325 it is stated that the definition of a highway in English law as "a
right of passage in general to all the King's subjects" applies also to
Scotland."

Now, granted, this is to /people/, not modes of conveyance, but it may
be the background that is implicit for us (but you're the lawyer).

Mark J.

I'm not a lawyer but from my reading of several state's laws it
appears that the basis is that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle
and vehicles have the right to use most roads although that right may
be subject to a number of circumstances. For example, a farm wagon is
a vehicle but that doesn't mean you can drive it down a major city
street, at high noon, or as is quite often found I believe, neither
can you ride your bicycle on many limited access, high speed,
highways.

Ohio has a law saying bicyclists cannot be prohibited from non-freeway
roads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2019 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:10:07 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts?

Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are
demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance.

Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very
accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and
running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph.
Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts
(and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash.

Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a
decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is
dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph.
Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration.

The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees
linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago,
but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational
accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt
to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be
exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no
body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated
head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets
don't demonstrate any large scale benefit.

And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there
were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet
industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because
truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn
while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled
from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and
necessary life saving products.

Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts.
Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since
they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire
or ability to actually think about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, minus the ad hominem and other nastiness that are inseparable from discussing anything at all with you, Franki-boy, that's a sort of an answer. But I knew all that, and so, I suspect, did most of the posters here. We've heard it all before, and it's a bore.

However, you've missed the point of my posts, either deliberately or because your mind runs on the railroad tracks of your obsession. I wasn't comparing the relative efficacy of automobilist and bicyclist protection. I was pointing out that the philosophical justification for mandatory car seatbelt laws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws are the same, and that those who resist or accept the principle of one must do the same for the other, or be labelled irrational.

Moving on to effective bicycle helmets, I would expect modern materials and knowledge to provide a solution. For instance, I can easily conceive of a bicycle helmet growing out of a HANS (a head and neck restraint against whiplash) as a sort of bowl of the same plastic as the HANS is made from, the bowl and as much of the lower part of the plastic surface of the HANS filled with D30, a military chemical compound used behind the outer skins of tanks; the compound goes hard in a microsecond and takes up all the shock of the impact. HANS devices are proven in automobile racing. D30 is proven in military use. I throw my expensive iPhone skinned in leather with D30 inside on concrete floors to demonstrate the amazing qualities of the stuff. In mass production it needn't cost more than helmets today (which I suspect have a huge markup of which most is spent on marketing).

Let us therefore say that my suggestion, or any other plan for an effective lightweight cycling helmet proves workable, would you still object to a mandatory helmet law? Or would you by analogy with mandatory car seatbelt laws agree that a mandatory helmet law is a good thing?

Andre Jute
Bicycle helmets are not the hill to die on

The latest "improvements" in a bicycle helmet is known as MIPS technology. This is a mounting system that allows the head to turn in the helmet when the helmet hits and usually sticks to the road surface. This prevents neck injuries and possibly some slight improvement in concussion protection.

But they were expecting to get a real premium for it and in fact - helmets are becoming less popular because of the price. Most performance cyclists are of college age or not a whole lot older except from we old useless duds. With tuition rates so damn high and not getting any lower even the once popular Giro Helmets (a Bell helmet with better styling) has had to start dropping prices. This is already driving the price of MIPS helmets down.

Bell isn't standing still but as I've said before - you cannot make a helmet that passes the standard and decreases concussions because it would be FAR too large for anyone to wear.

MIPS is a reaction to the fact that currently certified helmets have not
decreased bicyclist concussions. In fact, concussions have risen
markedly in the helmet era.

And it's interesting that America's most prominent helmet pusher, Randy
Swart (AKA "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute") is pretty much against
MIPS. He says that MIPS won't help.

OTOH, he says that current helmets are wonderful...

Where is your data Franky baby - show us the data. Mips has NOTHING to do with concussions and they do not advertise it as such.

From
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-...-say-1.1367454

"New designs claim to address concussion"

"There are now helmet designs out there that claim to lower the risk of
concussion by reducing rotational acceleration of the brain."

"One is known as MIPS, an acronym for Multi-directional Impact
Protection System."

Or if you prefer, from the inventors themselves, at
http://mipsprotection.com/mips-faq/#...fect-the-brain

"Several researchers have linked severe brain injuries like Diffuse
Axonal Injury (DAI) and Subdural Hematoma (SDH) to rotational motion
transmitted to the brain from angled impacts."

"Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) or concussion is also believed to be
caused by rotational motion."

Note the word "concussion" in that last sentence, Tom.

(sheesh!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:14:15 PM UTC-8, Mark J. wrote:
On 2/18/2019 6:06 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:46:45 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Why allow bikes on roads in the first place? They're dangerous!

Why allow people to ride on devices with top speeds in excess of
70mph with no license, no training and no supervision!

Bicycles should have airbags, collision avoidance systems, back-up
cameras and ABS! They should be subject to rigorous regulation with
mandatory licensing, registration and driver-training -- and
mandatory insurance. With high limits! Bicycles are a terror!
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-press


To quote Punch Magazine:

"Every cyclist to be presumed in all legal proceedings to be a
reckless idiot, and on the wrong side of the road, unless he can
bring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

and

Nobody to cycle without a license, issued by the Governor of
Newgate, after a fortnight’s strict examination (on bread and
water) in elementary mechanics, advanced hydrostatics and riding on
the head down an inclined plane.

and

When a cyclist on any road sees, or has reason to believe that he
might see if he chose to look, any horse, cart, carriage, gig or
other vehicle, or any pedestrian approaching, he (or she) to
instantly dismount, run the machine into the nearest ditch, and
kneel in a humble and supplicating attitude till said horse, cart
&c., has got at least a mile away."


Your bike privilege is showing. You've got some bike-splaining to do!

-- Jay Beattie.


*ahem*Â* the Paved Roads movement was instigated by CTC
(England) and LAW (USA), so who's the interloper on whose
roads again?

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

Chalo once made the killer point that cyclists are the predominant
form of transport on the roads because the cyclist does not need the
permission of an official license for either himself or his bike,
whereas a motorist needs a license both for himself and for his car.
That is possibly a reflection of who was originally behind the paved
roads.

Andre Jute
A little history will usually supply the answer

The ancient Mesopotamians?Â* Which paved roads?Â* The early Good Roads
movement in the US was animated by bicyclists, but the real road
building was for cars -- funded by license and registration fees and
then gas taxes.Â* We bicyclists love to take credit for paved roads,
but that's basically wishful thinking.Â* For a history of the Oregon
Movement:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads, nor is it
in the Bible or based on the "rights of man" or "natural rights"
(whatever those might be).Â* A local legislature could just say "No
bikes . . . too annoying.Â* Thank you. Come again." Check your bike
privilege.

The reference looks very interesting (history of Oregon Good Roads
movement).Â* But as to rights to the road, I thought I had read on RBT
some years back about there being some basis in English common law.

A quick google found this:
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...04/jones07.htm


I'll admit I didn't read carefully enough to see what main point it was
discussing, it may be something about easements,Â* but in it I found:

"In Rankine, The Law of Land, Ownership in Scotland, 4th ed. (1909), p.
325 it is stated that the definition of a highway in English law as "a
right of passage in general to all the King's subjects" applies also to
Scotland."

Now, granted, this is to /people/, not modes of conveyance, but it may
be the background that is implicit for us (but you're the lawyer).

Sorry to self-reply, this reference is vastly more pertinent:

https://www.bikewalknc.org/2017/03/h...nd-bicyclists/

Again, Jay, I defer to your dissection of it.

It's a simple exercise of police power. A state or municipality may pass laws restricting the operation of bicycles on roads or sidewalks so long as it has a legitimate health, safety or welfare goal. Here's a quote from an old case:

"In the case before us the statute (Pr. Laws 1885, ch. 14) forbids every person "to use upon the road of said company a bicycle or tricycle, or other nonhorse vehicle, without the express permission of the superintendent of said road," etc. The purpose of this statutory provision is not to destroy the defendant's property (his bicycle) or to deprive him of the use of it, in a way not injurious to others, but to prevent him from using it on a particular road (that mentioned) at a particular time or season, when it would, by reason of its peculiar shape and the unusual manner of using it as a means of locomotion, prove injurious to others, particularly women and children, constantly passing and repassing in great numbers over the particular road mentioned, in carriages and other ordinary vehicles drawn by horses.

The evidence tended strongly to show that the use of the bicycle on the road materially interfered with the exercise of the rights and safety of others in the lawful use of their carriages and horses in passing over the road. In repeated instances the horses became frightened at them, and carriages were thrown into the ditches along the side of the road. It was not uncommon for horses to become frightened at them and become unruly, if the evidence is to be believed.

The statute did not deprive the defendant of the use of his property--he might have gone another way, he might have gone at an opportune time, with the express permission of the superintendent of the road. In any case, he had no right to go, using his bicycle, at the peril of other people, he giving rise to such peril. The statute did not therefore, in any just sense, destroy his property, as contended, or deprive him of the proper and reasonable use of it; nor was such its purpose. Its purpose was lawful, and in our judgment it does not provide an unreasonable police regulation--certainly not one so unreasonable as to warrant us in declaring it void. Such statutes are valid, unless the purpose or necessary effect is, not to regulate the use of property, but to destroy it."

State v. Yopp, 97 N.C. 477, 481-82, 2 S.E. 458, 459 (1887)



Moreover, and not to get into a nauseating Con-law class, calling something a Constitutional "right" just means that a statute infringing on that right is subject to heightened scrutiny and not that it is necessarily unconstitutional. From zoning to throwing people in internment camps, a lot of supposed infringements are indeed Constitutional.

Even if a court finds a "right to travel" or "liberty" or "association" or what-have-you, that right can be reasonably restricted. A somewhat more recent example involving cyclists who demanded access to interstate highway bridges: Wherrett v. Doyle, 456 F. Supp. 203, 203 (D. Neb. 1978)(although the bicycle riders had a constitutional right to travel, they did not have a constitutional right to travel by a particular means. The statutes furthered the compelling state interest of moving traffic across the interstate bridges in a uniform and safe manner. Where bicycle riders on the interstate bridges promoted a dangerous and unsafe condition, the statutes were a proper exercise of the States' police power for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public.) The court in that case did not find a constitutional right to travel on interstate bridges but nonetheless analyzed the law under the heightened "compelling state interest" standard -- and still stuck it to the bike riders.

This case covers most of the Constitutional issues: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...y-of-new-york/

The only reason we can ride on the road surface with cars is because most states have adopted a version of the UVC. They could un-adopt it and make bicyclists stay on sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities. That would be easy to justify and would pass constitutional muster even under the "compelling" state interest standard. They could pass license and registration laws, etc., etc. Flashers, yellow vests, flippy flags could all be mandated. Sorry. We're not special.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?

Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective..
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.

Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any standard.

But apparently, that's not true for the populations that suffer the
greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar injuries,
including real traumatic brain injury. Right?

I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the majority of those
injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know - motorists,
pedestrians, people walking around their own homes...

We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with other members of
our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously icy, including
trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more. Nobody wore helmets
- go figure.

One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch and went down
like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said "Tsk - no
helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle, then stopped
herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets!

O.K., I went down in ice on my bike face first and sliced up my face but not my scalp. The facial laceration stopped at the helmet line. Are we going to trade anecdotes? I'm not telling anyone what choice to make, but wearing a helmet on a bike is not an idiotic or laughable choice simply because hikers, walkers, gardeners or showerers don't wear helmets. I don't hike, walk, garden or shower at speeds above 40mph. When I hike in the snow, I do wear crampons -- the little ones for my walking shoes.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/19/2019 1:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?

Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective.
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.

Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any standard.

But apparently, that's not true for the populations that suffer the
greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar injuries,
including real traumatic brain injury. Right?

I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the majority of those
injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know - motorists,
pedestrians, people walking around their own homes...

We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with other members of
our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously icy, including
trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more. Nobody wore helmets
- go figure.

One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch and went down
like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said "Tsk - no
helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle, then stopped
herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets!

O.K., I went down in ice on my bike face first and sliced up my face but not my scalp. The facial laceration stopped at the helmet line. Are we going to trade anecdotes? I'm not telling anyone what choice to make, but wearing a helmet on a bike is not an idiotic or laughable choice simply because hikers, walkers, gardeners or showerers don't wear helmets. I don't hike, walk, garden or shower at speeds above 40mph. When I hike in the snow, I do wear crampons -- the little ones for my walking shoes.

You're right that trading anecdotes doesn't have much value. But please
admit that _lots_ of helmet promotion is done by trading anecdotes. It
happens here, and it happens almost every time helmets are discussed
anywhere.

And let's realize that there are roughly 50,000 TBI deaths each year in
the U.S., and far more TB injuries. Each one of those could generate at
least one anecdote. If those were examined, only a tiny proportion would
have anything to do with riding bikes.

That's one of the main fallacies about the bike helmet hype. Bicycling
is slandered as a major brain injury concern. But the "cost to society"
of bicycling's TBI count is negligible compared to other TBI sources.
It's risk per mile or per hour is negligible as well, assuming you're
not getting crazy because you're feeling protected by your helmet. It
really is safer than pedestrian travel. Yet helmet promoters have
convinced millions of people that only fools would ever ride without
head protection.

Still, I'm not saying wearing a helmet on a bike is idiotic or
laughable. I've never ragged on any of my many, many helmet wearing
friends because of their headgear.

OTOH, I have had friends, acquaintances, and even anonymous abusive
motorists who have yelled at me, cursed at me, etc. because I chose to
ride a bike without a helmet.

Reread the article by Peter Flax. I'm far from alone.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2019 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 1:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear
helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because
bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?

Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many
times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to
be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really
necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really
really protective.
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk
and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still
valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only
because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.

Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly
pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without
skull fracture, you can get a complex
laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw
puzzle. Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from
a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent
injuries that are serious by any standard.

But apparently, that's not true for the populations that
suffer the
greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar
injuries,
including real traumatic brain injury. Right?

I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the
majority of those
injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know -
motorists,
pedestrians, people walking around their own homes...

We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with
other members of
our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously
icy, including
trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more.
Nobody wore helmets
- go figure.

One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch
and went down
like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said
"Tsk - no
helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle,
then stopped
herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets!

O.K., I went down in ice on my bike face first and sliced
up my face but not my scalp. The facial laceration
stopped at the helmet line. Are we going to trade
anecdotes? I'm not telling anyone what choice to make,
but wearing a helmet on a bike is not an idiotic or
laughable choice simply because hikers, walkers, gardeners
or showerers don't wear helmets. I don't hike, walk,
garden or shower at speeds above 40mph. When I hike in
the snow, I do wear crampons -- the little ones for my
walking shoes.

You're right that trading anecdotes doesn't have much value.
But please admit that _lots_ of helmet promotion is done by
trading anecdotes. It happens here, and it happens almost
every time helmets are discussed anywhere.

And let's realize that there are roughly 50,000 TBI deaths
each year in the U.S., and far more TB injuries. Each one of
those could generate at least one anecdote. If those were
examined, only a tiny proportion would have anything to do
with riding bikes.

That's one of the main fallacies about the bike helmet hype.
Bicycling is slandered as a major brain injury concern. But
the "cost to society" of bicycling's TBI count is negligible
compared to other TBI sources. It's risk per mile or per
hour is negligible as well, assuming you're not getting
crazy because you're feeling protected by your helmet. It
really is safer than pedestrian travel. Yet helmet promoters
have convinced millions of people that only fools would ever
ride without head protection.

Still, I'm not saying wearing a helmet on a bike is idiotic
or laughable. I've never ragged on any of my many, many
helmet wearing friends because of their headgear.

OTOH, I have had friends, acquaintances, and even anonymous
abusive motorists who have yelled at me, cursed at me, etc.
because I chose to ride a bike without a helmet.

Reread the article by Peter Flax. I'm far from alone.


Out there in Left field, the old LAW, which has been taken
over by communists, says the success of helmet campaigns may
be measured by a 25-year high in 'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths:

https://bikeleague.org/content/press...-health-crisis

'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths? Not too much conflation, eh?

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

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 10:05 AM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM, wrote:

Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road?

You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data.

Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much.

Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike
racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the
popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no
evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the
right direction.

Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically
effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped
out by a few miles per hour more speed?

That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you
compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said
helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance
of you actually giving data.)

Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the
effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities.

Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds.

Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds.

Is your Alzheimer's acting up today?

Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in
your response to John.

Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's
scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response:

As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists
have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to
the law's enactment.

--
Cheers,
John B.

To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with
helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc.

You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that
the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor
speed increases were the cause.

Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness
of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will
clear up the confusion.

Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths?

What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect
into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else.

Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think
bike helmets are at preventing fatalities?


--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities?

I don't think bike helmets directly cause many fatalities, although they
may cause some. The mechanism that's been proposed is this: Since the
helmet is obviously larger than the bare human head, there must be a
certain number of glancing blows to the helmet that would be near misses
of a bare head, or perhaps that would have barely hit the head.

Glancing blows induce rotational acceleration of the head, which is the
predominant mechanism for brain damage. If the hit is hard enough and
the rotational acceleration large enough, there can be shear damage to
the blood vessels and other tissues in the brain. Damaged blood vessels
can cause intercranial swelling, which can be fatal.

But I don't think it's possible to determine how often this causes
fatalities, nor other traumatic brain injuries, such as concussions.

Yet it's pretty clear that bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen,
during the time period that helmet use rose. Likewise, its clear that
elite racer fatalities also rose. One way or other, the use of helmets
seems to make things worse.

Some have said a more likely mechanism is risk compensation. I think
that's extremely likely regarding mountain biking, a sport in which
risky riding is actively promoted. I suspect that if the plastic hats
were forbidden instead of required, riders would be much more careful. I
think the effect for road riders is probably less, but not absent. Over
the years in this forum and elsewhere we've had remarks like "I'd never
ride that road without a helmet." That's direct evidence of risk
compensation.

But all the above is detail, in my opinion. The bare fact is, despite
the treasured anecdotes about lives saved, despite all the claims of
tremendous protection, data on actual injuries and deaths show that bike
helmets are not working. And that's not at all surprising to people who
really understand their minimal certification standards.

But I don't think that means bicyclists should worry. Data on actual
injuries and deaths show that bicycling is, on average, a very safe
activity. It's NOT the death trap that helmet promoters make it out to
be. And every relevant study has found that its benefits FAR outweigh
its tiny risks.

OK, Tom, that's my view. Now can I ask you (for the third or fourth
time): How effective do _you_ think bike helmets are at preventing
fatalities?

The primary means of traumatic head injuries is a blow and NOT rotation force which can cause neck or back injuries.

As I pointed out in my paper and you do not seem to understand - there doesn't not seem to be any statistical evidence that a helmet save any life. But of course just as you hedge your bet - there could possibly be a rare outlier in which a helmet makes the difference between a serious injury and a fatality.

So why wouldn't you answer my question until five messages of prodding?

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But...

On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote:

Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies.

By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour
de France.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg

http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg

http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg

etc., etc.

The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff.

Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff
involved.


By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory...

Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003."

but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes...

I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of
correcting Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Tell us all Frank - what does it matter if Simpson didn't die of a head injury from wearing a helmet?

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But....

On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote:

Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies.

By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour
de France.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg

http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg

http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg

etc., etc.

The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff.

Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff
involved.


By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory...

Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003."

but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue.. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes...

I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of
correcting Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

So what you're saying is that helmets didn't cause pro-cyclists deaths until 13 years later? Well, plainly they must have gotten really dangerous for some reason. Do you suppose it was because of the stupid articles you've written in several groups about bicycle helmets?