Shimano Headset

On 5/16/2017 12:20 PM, Duane wrote:
On 16/05/2017 10:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:29:32 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2017 7:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 4:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
Snipped
A helmet doesn't make you bullet-proof or immortal.

I still take all other sensible precautions when using
tools too - not
depending on safety glasses to protect me from stupidity,
but giving
my eyes a fighting chance in case carefull use of the
tools still
sends something flying towards my eyes. Don't know about
you, but I
can only blink SO fast - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who
oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be
persuaded that a helmet can help.

:-) And by the same token, most of the people who
religiously believe in the great TBI risk of bicycling and
the great protective value of bike helmets will never give
up those beliefs.

I think most of them are convinced that if they hadn't worn
helmets all their lives, bicycling would have killed them.
Which is really odd, considering that bike helmets weren't
available until the mid-1970s.


Jean Robic wore a helmet religiously in the 1940s and 1950s.
You can't ask his opinion. He's dead.

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

The ONE time my helmeted head slammed into the pavememt I was VERY
happy that I was wearing that helmet then. I don't care if anyone
else wears or doesn't wear a helmet. It's their choice. I do know
that in some cses a helmet can really help even if it just means you
get up and continue your ride instead of going to the hospital for
stiches, wound scrubbing or concusion, after wiping out.

I don't care aboutthe statistics that many can trot out. I care about
what happened that time to ME.

When I crashed in October and broke my hand, my head bounced along the
pavement, and I was happy to have a helmet on -- which broke. I wasn't
knocked out, but I probably avoided scalp injury, and when you're
miserable post-surgery with pins sticking out of your hand and in
agonizing back pain, not having a scalp injury is a small bright spot.
It's the little things.

I think we've had maybe two days of dry weather since last summer.
Right now, the greatest risk to cyclists is probably suicide. Crashing
due to poor traction, however, is right up there too. Might as well
wear a helmet -- so long as its not flushing sweat into my eyes. Note
to helmet users -- wash your liners.



I was riding last year with some people and coming off a hill, at the
bottom there is a turn that we take often. This time there had been
some rain that we didn't notice as it was localized. Anyway, the guy in
front of me slid on the paint. I nearly but didn't quite miss him and
went down sliding and my helmet got cracked when his chain ring slammed
into it. Me too I was happy the helmet took that and not my head.

Anyway, oh joy here we go with another helmet/Danger! Danger! thread. It
must be weeks since we've had a good one. yawn.

:-) Thanks for contributing. But if these discussions bore you so, why
post?


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

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

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.

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

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?"

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

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.

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.


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. I'm just reducing my existing risk. I could also go take falling classes at the Ninja Academy after work, but that would be too much effort. Since I have fallen while riding conservatively in rain, snow and ice, I choose to wear a helmet. In fact, I wear a helmet most of the time because it is no big deal to me, and it keeps my head warmer in the winter and spring. I prefer to rant about taxes and traffic and not helmets.

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi wrote:
On 5/16/2017 2:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

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?

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the cases where
helmets actually prevented head injury (or where helmets
caused a head injury that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider
took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she
would have avoided without a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets, you risk comparing two
populations that are quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek medical attention, in
economic status, and many other factors.

If you want to know what effect helmet promotion or helmet use have on
public health, it makes sense to measure what happens when helmet use
changes, although that is not the only reasonable methodology.



+1 good analysis


Agreed.

--
duane

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?"


Yep.

--
duane