Shimano Headset

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Don't tell me - you live in a large city.
You think that most of the hospitals in this
country are on the web so that they can
release personal information from
a virus attack.

Say what?

I haven't worked in a hospital but my
impression is they are understaffed.

However this kind of study does not require
hundreds of people or tons of
number-crunching machines.

But even if it did - so what? It appears to be
a relevant field of study, don't you think?

Why would you talk about this if you haven't ANY idea what is involved and how statistical measurements are made? "Impressions" mean nothing.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:02:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

- Frank Krygowski

You're just an idealist.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:27:01 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:

snip

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town, and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5 or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2 on the
crank)

That's how it was in the U.S. too. I can't recall ever being driven to
school, though perhaps it happened on occasion. The bike racks in
elementary school were packed.

It continued in college, where a bicycle was really necessary to go
between classes because it was a very large campus, though there are
compact campuses where bicycling is rare (Cal Berkeley) but large
campuses where bicycling is popular (UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis...).

Now where I live it would be extremely rare to see a kid bicycling alone
to elementary school, but I'm in a different city now, with very
different demographics. I still see a few kids riding to elementary
school, but not alone. I don't recall any bicycle racks at the school.
But for middle school and high school there are still a lot of cyclists.
Every Thursday morning I go to my Toastmaster's club which meets
directly across from the high school and which starts at the same time
as the high school. I end up riding with a bunch of high school kids.

But what's changed in the U.S., is a huge increase in adult cycling, for
several reasons. You have the day workers riding in from San Jose. You
have the grandparents from China, who don't drive but live with their
children, riding to the store or to the park. And you have the
professionals riding to Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, Facebook, Yahoo,
Apple, HP, Kaiser, etc.. As the bicycling infrastructure has improved
you have more and more adult cyclists riding to work. In my city we're
in the middle of an ambitious bicycle plan
http://www.cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3479 to
add Class 4 bicycle lanes. Sadly, it took the death of a student to spur
the city into action. Two of us on the City Council are pushing for a
more aggressive schedule for completion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/08/bike-commuting-popularity-grows/8846311/.
Unfortunately, large percentage increases in the number of people
bicycling to work don't translate to a huge increase in much of modal
increase.

It is almost impossible to use a bicycle to go to school. It would be stolen the first day in the first five minutes by some guy with a battery powered grinder throwing sparks all over the place while cutting off a Kryptonite lock while the campus police and other students walked by totally oblivious to what was happening.

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 1:46:59 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
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.

Most small country hospitals do nothing of the sort.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, 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?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

--

writes:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, 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?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country where
bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to portray as
dangerous. If public health people were really at the root of the
promotion, why would it not have happened in those European countries
where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported) benefit?
Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA????

By adults.

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town, and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5 or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2 on the
crank)

Safety measures for children's activities are easier to sell, and
that seems to be more so every day, at least here in the US.

--

Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman writes:

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.

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.

If one would make a serious investigation into this,
there would be no mention whatsoever of ladders,
knives, chefs in the UK, etc., and the only time cars
and MCs would be mentioned is whenever a bike has been
hit by or collided into such a vehicle and this is the
cause of the accident.

I'm sorry the question drifts from "how effective are bike helmets?" to
"how can we reduce TBI?". We drifted into helmets in the first place,
as usual.

--

sms writes:

On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

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.

And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the
helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is
vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many
people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the
helmet.

I think that was my first point, which you snipped. Not that I agree
that helmet effectiveness is under-estimated.

--

John B. writes:

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.

We have electronic devices that do that for us today. Soon we won't
have to do a thing.

I have no real evidence, but believe that early experience riding in the
streets tends to make one a better driver later on, being a
keener observer of driver behavior.

--

On 5/17/2017 11:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, 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?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country where
bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to portray as
dangerous. If public health people were really at the root of the
promotion, why would it not have happened in those European countries
where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported) benefit?
Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA????

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town, and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5 or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2 on the
crank)

I think you missed the word "comparatively." Bike use in the U.S. has
always been much smaller than in Europe and Asia.

And it's interesting that American kids once rode bikes very much more
than they do now. My friends and I certainly rode a lot when I was a
kid; but the only common warning then was from a mom saying "Watch out
for cars."

Today, warnings come from well-funded institutions pushing publications
saying "You can fall off your bike and die even in your own driveway!
You MUST wear a helmet every time you ride a bike!"

Do you think there may be a connection between the "Danger! Danger!"
warnings and the drop in kids' bicycling? Just maybe?


--
- Frank Krygowski