Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

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

On 2/18/2019 5:36 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.

-- Jay Beattie.





Yes, there's that and also the pavement allegory to the
maritime rule - larger vessel has right of way. Period.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ree-years.html

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

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:01:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:32:46 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:41:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:49:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2019 8:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I didn't see a ton of bicycle accidents as an ambulance driver...

Which is my point! Could you take a guess at the percentage of serious
head & brain injuries you saw that were bicyclists?

Well, there weren't a lot of cyclists back then, and undoubtedly not many who required ambulance transportation from an accident...

Nonetheless, it's been very consistent for decades that
of the nation's serious TBI, less than 2% are bicyclists.
The other 98% are not told they should have worn helmets.
And I know, from asking audiences of talks I've given
to various audiences, that it's common for people to
believe that 30% of America's TBI fatalities are
bicyclists. Now how do you suppose that idea popped up?
Hint: It was NOT spontaneous.

But a bunch of studies have said
that's true of bicycling.

That means that dissuading people from riding bikes (by helmet mandates
or scary helmet promotion) probably causes net detriment to public health.

I don't see any helmet promotion, but I do see a lot of people in helmets. I'll quiz the bazillion helmeted cyclists I see every day and see why they wear helmets.

You don't see any helmet promotion?

OK, I'll grant you that it's a bit less than it has been,
partly because people have spent years pointing out
the lies helmet promoters used. Some people did listen,
for example the bike club that sued to get NHTSA to
stop using T&R's obviously false "85%" claim.

But I think the main reason there's _less_ (but
definitely not NO) helmet promotion is that "big helmet"
as you call it is satisfied. They've got helmets
installed as the default choice among people who think
they're being responsible. They've got cyclists mocking
others who ride without helmets. They've got every
day care in America forbidding kids to use any wheeled
toy without a helmet, even though most are fitted
terribly and totally unnecessary.

That did NOT happen without decades of dedicated,
persistent and dishonest helmet promotion. It's
incredibly naive to think otherwise.

I wear a helmet because I whacked my head a bunch of times, had my face stitched up twice and believe there is value in wearing a helmet. And yes, de-gloving scalp injuries can be painful and nasty to repair. It is trauma worth avoiding. I wear a helmet voluntarily, so If I were compelled to wear a helmet, I wouldn't stay off my bike. I rode my bike with my legs in ortho boots, with a shoulder sling, broken and plated hand -- and currently with massively arthritic knees. Out of my cold dead hands! I don't understand people who refuse to ride with a helmet. I get the whole "Don't Tread on [my Head]" thing, but I couldn't imagine not riding even if someone made me wear an orange vest.

Do you not understand that you're the tail of the bell
curve? You'd probably ride a bike if they passed a law
requiring you bungee twenty pounds of concrete blocks
onto a rear rack. But it's pretty well proven that
many, many people feel differently. And even if they
did not, what is the sense of imposing a law that
mandates a commercial product of very questionable
efficacy, to prevent a problem of tiny proportions,
when other activities demonstrate far greater risk?
It's absolute nonsense.

Really, it doesn't matter to you primarily because
you've bought into the nonsense. It wouldn't bother you
if they said you have to wear a helmet because you
believe a helmet is wonderfully valuable. Maybe for you
it is, but others who don't have your crash history
shouldn't be harangued, and shouldn't have to justify
their choice to ride as everyone rode before 1980 or so.

- Frank Krygowski

In the spirit of honest advertising I wonder whether a little decal
shouldn't be placed on each helmet sold stating something like, "This
Helmet was tested at an equivalent speed of 14mph (22.5kph) and speeds
exceeding this figure may prove dangerous.

After the public is entitled to know the limitations of the safety
gear that they are being sold :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

That is a totally incorrect depiction of a helmet. They are designed to withstand a fall of 6' with ONLY the weight of your head on the helmet upon impact. And the design is to protect you from a skull fracture alone. They CANNOT protect you from concussion.

Most serious falls have much more mass behind the helmet than just your head. And the most serious injuries are from concussion since this usually leads to damage of the prefrontal lobe cortex - the part of your brain with which you think.

But since you instinctively have a desire for self preservation you seldom are in such a position to cause such injuries.

And helmets do a reasonable job of protecting you from minor injuries.

But, as Frank has pointed out, bicycle head injuries are far
outnumbered by head injuries among motor vehicle operators and even
those who walk.

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?

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:16:04 -0800 (PST), 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?

I love your comeback, particularly as you are (one might even say
famous) for changing the subject when anyone queries any of your
statements.

Sort of the pot and the kettle. Which one is black?

--
Cheers,
John B.

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?

All of the rest of what you're saying makes equally little sense. Remember, I'M the one that actually published a paper saying that helmets do not save lives. Are YOU saying that you don't believe that paper?

Our discussion wasn't about helmets - it was about aerodynamics making bikes faster and therefore more dangerous in a crash. I do not follow your inference that speeds are getting higher because Froome develops more power than Merckx. did.

These increased speeds are significantly higher than the early 90's tube bikes. The Colnago C40 was a tube bike and it wasn't any faster on TT's than a Pinarello steel bike. But the modern carbon fiber TT bikes are so fast that a Cat 2 can do faster short TT's than Merckx could in his day.

On a mountain descent this can be over 10 mph FASTER and hence since power = M*V^2 that is an EXTREME increase in the power a falling body has. This plainly shows why today's cyclists are having higher rates of deaths and severe injuries for no other reason than faster bikes.

So unless you are having memory lapses perhaps you can explain what the hell you're saying more clearly and not a "You said".

As a purely personal aside - there is a very mild descent of about 6% that we go down often. It is 2 miles long. On my Colnago fairly aero bike with aero wheels the ONLY one that can pass me and hold a 20 yard lead is a very fast 40 year old who has a Specialized Works bike. And he is pedaling really hard to do so, whereas I'm doing quite a bit of coasting because of the road having broken glass on it in strange areas where you can come up on it at 35 mph without seeing it until the last second. At the 4 mile mark I have waited several minutes for the next one behind me who was trying to stay with me.

I don't know what you are riding but you are not riding an aero bike and so you don't understand what a remarkable difference it makes.

On 2/18/2019 7:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/18/2019 5:36 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.

-- Jay Beattie.





Yes, there's that and also the pavement allegory to the maritime rule -
larger vessel has right of way. Period.

Thankfully, roads are not governed by maritime rules. Tractor trailer
rigs would never stop for anything. Your beloved Corvair would have to
stop and genuflect before any Cadillac Escalade.

It would be totally impractical. So we have other laws, including those
that give cyclists a right to use the roads.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ree-years.html

Banned for driving for four and a half years?

What on earth would it take to get someone banned from driving for life,
if not this?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:01:56 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/18/2019 5:36 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.

-- Jay Beattie.





Yes, there's that and also the pavement allegory to the
maritime rule - larger vessel has right of way. Period.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ree-years.html


Actually that isn't correct.

The "Merchant Shipping (Distress
Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996" are stated to
"(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in
all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels."

However, if a vessel is constrained due to her draught, or service
(towing, etc) or ability to navigate easily then, depending on
circumstances, she might have the right-of-way.

For example, a large box carrier in a narrow channel might be deemed
to have the right of way but the same vessel in unrestricted waters
would not.

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:54:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:01:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:32:46 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:41:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:49:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2019 8:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I didn't see a ton of bicycle accidents as an ambulance driver...

Which is my point! Could you take a guess at the percentage of serious
head & brain injuries you saw that were bicyclists?

Well, there weren't a lot of cyclists back then, and undoubtedly not many who required ambulance transportation from an accident...

Nonetheless, it's been very consistent for decades that
of the nation's serious TBI, less than 2% are bicyclists.
The other 98% are not told they should have worn helmets.
And I know, from asking audiences of talks I've given
to various audiences, that it's common for people to
believe that 30% of America's TBI fatalities are
bicyclists. Now how do you suppose that idea popped up?
Hint: It was NOT spontaneous.

But a bunch of studies have said
that's true of bicycling.

That means that dissuading people from riding bikes (by helmet mandates
or scary helmet promotion) probably causes net detriment to public health.

I don't see any helmet promotion, but I do see a lot of people in helmets. I'll quiz the bazillion helmeted cyclists I see every day and see why they wear helmets.

You don't see any helmet promotion?

OK, I'll grant you that it's a bit less than it has been,
partly because people have spent years pointing out
the lies helmet promoters used. Some people did listen,
for example the bike club that sued to get NHTSA to
stop using T&R's obviously false "85%" claim.

But I think the main reason there's _less_ (but
definitely not NO) helmet promotion is that "big helmet"
as you call it is satisfied. They've got helmets
installed as the default choice among people who think
they're being responsible. They've got cyclists mocking
others who ride without helmets. They've got every
day care in America forbidding kids to use any wheeled
toy without a helmet, even though most are fitted
terribly and totally unnecessary.

That did NOT happen without decades of dedicated,
persistent and dishonest helmet promotion. It's
incredibly naive to think otherwise.

I wear a helmet because I whacked my head a bunch of times, had my face stitched up twice and believe there is value in wearing a helmet. And yes, de-gloving scalp injuries can be painful and nasty to repair. It is trauma worth avoiding. I wear a helmet voluntarily, so If I were compelled to wear a helmet, I wouldn't stay off my bike. I rode my bike with my legs in ortho boots, with a shoulder sling, broken and plated hand -- and currently with massively arthritic knees. Out of my cold dead hands! I don't understand people who refuse to ride with a helmet. I get the whole "Don't Tread on [my Head]" thing, but I couldn't imagine not riding even if someone made me wear an orange vest.

Do you not understand that you're the tail of the bell
curve? You'd probably ride a bike if they passed a law
requiring you bungee twenty pounds of concrete blocks
onto a rear rack. But it's pretty well proven that
many, many people feel differently. And even if they
did not, what is the sense of imposing a law that
mandates a commercial product of very questionable
efficacy, to prevent a problem of tiny proportions,
when other activities demonstrate far greater risk?
It's absolute nonsense.

Really, it doesn't matter to you primarily because
you've bought into the nonsense. It wouldn't bother you
if they said you have to wear a helmet because you
believe a helmet is wonderfully valuable. Maybe for you
it is, but others who don't have your crash history
shouldn't be harangued, and shouldn't have to justify
their choice to ride as everyone rode before 1980 or so.

- Frank Krygowski

In the spirit of honest advertising I wonder whether a little decal
shouldn't be placed on each helmet sold stating something like, "This
Helmet was tested at an equivalent speed of 14mph (22.5kph) and speeds
exceeding this figure may prove dangerous.

After the public is entitled to know the limitations of the safety
gear that they are being sold :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

That is a totally incorrect depiction of a helmet. They are designed to withstand a fall of 6' with ONLY the weight of your head on the helmet upon impact. And the design is to protect you from a skull fracture alone. They CANNOT protect you from concussion.

Most serious falls have much more mass behind the helmet than just your head. And the most serious injuries are from concussion since this usually leads to damage of the prefrontal lobe cortex - the part of your brain with which you think.

But since you instinctively have a desire for self preservation you seldom are in such a position to cause such injuries.

And helmets do a reasonable job of protecting you from minor injuries.

But, as Frank has pointed out, bicycle head injuries are far
outnumbered by head injuries among motor vehicle operators and even
those who walk.

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.

Over here a helmet is a part of the recreational cyclist's wardrobe
while transportation riders just wear their everyday clothes. I once
had a local recreational rider admonish me about not wearing a helmet,
and during the conversation we were passed by a elderly chap
apparently coming home from the market with plastic bags of stuff
hanging from his handle bars and of course no helmet. The guy telling
me how important it was to wear a helmet didn't pay any attention to
the old guy.


--
Cheers,
John B.

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:06:33 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:16:04 -0800 (PST), 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?

I love your comeback, particularly as you are (one might even say
famous) for changing the subject when anyone queries any of your
statements.

Sort of the pot and the kettle. Which one is black?

--
Cheers,
John B.

If you bothered to actually follow the subject you would see that Frank claimed that racers were having more serious head injuries AFTER helmets and I said that the large difference was not a result of the helmets but one of bikes being made a great deal faster. I can see why you would think me changing the subject because you cannot keep up with it.

But since this is normal for you, I will simply snicker and continue.

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