#221
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:26:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 5/17/2017 6:05 AM, Duane wrote: wrote: 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. Right. Only bad riders have accidents. Like Chris Froome. Ridiculous. What I've written about is avoiding riders who don't hold a steady line; or riders who pass close without warning, especially on one's blind side; or riders who take unnecessary risks, like taking corners at extreme speeds; or riders who flout traffic laws. Having said that, we had one r.b.tech denizen who claimed one could not be a good rider unless he crashed a lot. I think that's total nonsense. I claim that almost every crash is an indication of a rider mistake. To me, "There was gravel in that corner!" translates as "I didn't think to look for gravel in that corner." To me, "That driver right hooked me" translates as "I was going straight, but I put myself to the right of a right turning car." To me, "She opened her car door right in front of me!" translates as "I was dumb enough to ride in the door zone." I can visualize a few motorist moves that a cyclist could not prevent. I can visualize a few crash types caused by unpredictable component failure. But I think almost every bike crash indicates a mistake at some point by the bike rider. But who am I to talk? I have so little experience with crashing. I've had only two moving on-road falls since beginning adult riding in 1972. Way back in the dim and distant past my high school offered an optional course called a "Driving Class" which taught a technique that they referred to as "defensive driving". This course was, of course, oriented toward automobile driving but the techniques certainly applied to bicyclists also. The basic theory was "drive so you don't have an accident". But I suppose that these ancient ideas are now as passee as the buggy whip. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:10:26 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote: Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle accidents are never reported since they have no severe injuries. If an accident isn't reported and involve no severe injuries it might as well be cancelled out of the investigation. For such accidents the helmet shouldn't really play a role anyway. I'm not so sure that will provide accurate information. If you count only those who go to the hospital if your statistics provide data on bicycle safety. One report I read estimated that there may be as many as double as many bicycle accidents as reported by medical treatment centers. If you have 100 people that have an accident with their bike and 50 of them go to the hospital and 25 have head injuries then do you report that 50% of bicycle accidents are head injuries? hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else. Not true, at least in most countries there are rather extensive reporting agencies that do keep track of hospital treatments. Don't you have universities and Ph.D. students who produce research on sport safety, traffic safety, who test and compare safety gear, not to mention university hospitals that do research on all kind of trauma to the body and the head? That might be so. But the defining statistics are not based on collage student reports. But yes, no matter who deiced and/or financed the undertaking it would have to be done with the approval of the hospitals. Not so, in the U.S., at least. One recent study I read was done by the Harvard Medical School in conjunction with a major insurance company and also referenced studies done by the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) which is a government agency (I believe). -- Cheers, John B. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
rOn Wed, 17 May 2017 22:17:41 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: 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. 0.6% of TBI fatalities is *plenty enough*. Besides, how many TBIs are non-fatal? In a presentation made to the U.S. Congress: "Each year an estimated 1.5 million Americans sustain a TBI. As a consequence of these injuries: 50 thousand people die"' There are research on stuff considerably more goofy/arcane and detached than that. And such a study wouldn't even be expensive or difficult. Any small group of Ph.D. students in their 20s and 30s should be able to carry it out and compile the result. In the U.S. "Public Law 104-166, the Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996, authorizes State surveillance systems to obtain information on the number of people affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI), the causes of these injuries, and their severity." -- Cheers, John B. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Thu, 18 May 2017 01:11:16 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: To gain knowledge and in the long run decrease the number of such injuries and/or reduce their severeness. But why start with the 0.6%? That is the part that will help us answer the question if helmets are beneficial. But of course all approaches that make sense should be carried out simultaneously. Which is how it works, as well. It's _much_ more sensible to attack the biggest sources of the problem. People who are at some university institution or some science facility carry on with their own research. There are enough researchers and Ph.D. students to allow for that. In the U.S. there are about 50,000 to 60,000 TBI fatalities per year. (It varies, and counts are not precise.) For one year I researched, the count was 56,000. That year there were there were about 750 bicyclist fatalities, of which about 335 were due to TBI. 335/year is plenty enough to do research on. I suggest that there are other things to be excited about. Several studies have indicated that a large percentage of bicycle-auto collisions were the fault of the bicyclist not obeying traffic regulations, the year long study done by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles county reported that more then half of the collisions, where fault could be determined, were the fault of the cyclist.. Another study reported that 27% of the bicyclists killed had Blood alcohol over .01 g/dl. It might be suggested that obeying the law and not drinking are significantly more important then simply wearing a helmet. -- Cheers, John B. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Wed, 17 May 2017 21:50:42 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote: Emanuel Berg writes: 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. All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers, and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time. And who never uses a ladder? It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle. Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that surely will fix the problem? And they chose well. Biking in the USA, and in other countries where helmets have become popular, is frequently done by children (think of the children!), or for sport (with rules). For most it's an optional recreational activity, for which a little inconvenience in the name of safety hardly seems unreasonable. And, in a country where bicycles are still used as transportation, helmets seem to be very much a part of the lycra clad uniform while folks pedaling to the market for their daily shopping don't use them at all. I can't remember ever seeing someone riding a bicycle with a basket on the front and wearing a helmet. Kids? Again, I can't remember seeing a kid wearing a helmet and when in Phuket I am the neighborhood bike fixer for the local kids. The reason walking or driving helmets never got off the ground is not that they make less sense than biking helmets, it's just that few would accept them for ordinary daily activities. A few years ago there was a push by doctors in the UK to ban pointy knives. They said that chefs didn't actually need points, and could work without; points are only good for stabbing others. That one didn't take hold either. -- Cheers, John B. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
|
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
John B. writes:
I'm not so sure that will provide accurate information. [...] If you have 100 people that have an accident with their bike and 50 of them go to the hospital and 25 have head injuries then do you report that 50% of bicycle accidents are head injuries? Only the injuries reported would be studied with an emphasis on helmet use and its impact on the damage. How would one provide more accurate information than to study it first hand? hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else. Not true, at least in most countries there are rather extensive reporting agencies that do keep track of hospital treatments. (I didn't write that.) But yes, no matter who deviced and/or financed the undertaking it would have to be done with the approval of the hospitals. Not so, in the U.S., at least. One recent study I read was done by the Harvard Medical School in conjunction with a major insurance company and also referenced studies done by the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) which is a government agency (I believe). OK, and where do they get the data, if the hospitals and/or emergency services do not approve to share them? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
John B. writes:
It might be suggested that obeying the law and not drinking are significantly more important then simply wearing a helmet. Now we are back to the 99.4% or "what's more important" argument. Luckily, research doesn't work that way. Even if 0.6% is considered small, which in fact, it isn't, people research all kinds of things. Right now there is probably some dude doing research on the birds in Scandinavia. Why? There are many more birds in the rain forest! And why birds? There are many more insects! And why animals? Isn't man more important? It doesn't work like that, thank God. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Thu, 18 May 2017 07:30:21 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote: John B. writes: I'm not so sure that will provide accurate information. [...] If you have 100 people that have an accident with their bike and 50 of them go to the hospital and 25 have head injuries then do you report that 50% of bicycle accidents are head injuries? Only the injuries reported would be studied with an emphasis on helmet use and its impact on the damage. That is my exactly my point. You and I crash and hit our head on the ground. You elect to visit a clinic where they clean the wound and apply a bandage and record the treatment. I elect to go home, my wife cleans the wound and applies a bandage. If only the reported injury is considered then apparently 100% of bike crashes result in head injuries requiring medical attention. The problem, of course, is that incomplete data results in erroneous conclusions. How would one provide more accurate information than to study it first hand? hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else. Not true, at least in most countries there are rather extensive reporting agencies that do keep track of hospital treatments. (I didn't write that.) But yes, no matter who deviced and/or financed the undertaking it would have to be done with the approval of the hospitals. Not so, in the U.S., at least. One recent study I read was done by the Harvard Medical School in conjunction with a major insurance company and also referenced studies done by the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) which is a government agency (I believe). OK, and where do they get the data, if the hospitals and/or emergency services do not approve to share them? They are required to supply the data. By public law in the case of the U.S. Communicable Disease Center. -- Cheers, John B. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle accidents are never reported since they have no severe injuries. If an accident isn't reported and involve no severe injuries it might as well be cancelled out of the investigation. For such accidents the helmet shouldn't really play a role anyway. hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else. Don't you have universities and Ph.D. students who produce research on sport safety, traffic safety, who test and compare safety gear, not to mention university hospitals that do research on all kind of trauma to the body and the head? But yes, no matter who deiced and/or financed the undertaking it would have to be done with the approval of the hospitals. So let me get this straight. If bicyclists and pedestrians had a certain comparable number of head injuries and the bicyclists go from 0% to 30% of helmet use and this percentage hasn't changed you're saying that suddenly bicyclists started having a large number of crashes in which they were saved from head injuries by wearing helmets. Why the logic of that is inescapable to some sort of helmet nut. |
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 |