Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

And are
you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
contributed to the injury?


He was not wearing a helmut. -insubstantial errors on my part- that was 3
years ago for gosh sakes.
Proof you should start wearing yours.

wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2007 09:08:22 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson:

It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous
world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if
you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in
America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the
swing set in the local park.

But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive
paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction
and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike
fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles
get ridden between such incidents?

Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And
those are so confusing, aren't they?


Let's ask Bill a math question:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.

?????Who cycles 24 hours a day. Means nothing.

wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2007 09:08:22 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson:

It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous
world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if
you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in
America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the
swing set in the local park.

But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive
paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction
and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike
fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles
get ridden between such incidents?

Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And
those are so confusing, aren't they?


Let's ask Bill a math question:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.

It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:29:40 GMT, "nash"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, wrote:
Matt O'Toole wrote:
I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.

So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
"dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

Oh, horse****. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of
child
molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
(And sadly, it often is.)

There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with
it.


Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters;
despite there being zero or precious little evidence that

a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and

b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur.

Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades..

There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while
roller
blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not
to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time.
He was an experienced rollerblader too.


Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident?

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issue...064102nn1.html

If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging
that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are
you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
contributed to the injury?

And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please
re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most
skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their
advantage...

And you are obviously ignoring the whole article which says...
Recreational pursuits like skateboarding, cycling and rollerblading result
in the second highest number of brain injuries annually in the province
among young adults, according to Maryse Neilson of the Brain Injury
Associations of B.C.

Yes, perhaps it is the highest _number_, excepting those involving
motorcars - but it is a vanishingly small _rate_ of injury; an example
being that the fatality rate while cycling, for instance, is something
like one per 450 years of riding non-stop, 24 hours a day.

Obviously, the rate of injury will be somewhat larger than that of
fatality, but even if it were two or three orders of magniutde
greater, it would _still_ be a vanishingly small rate.

If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet?

Secondly, the largest and best-constructed studies show essentially
zero effect on head injury rates when helmet wearing increases
abruptly.

Even if you do have an injury, if a helmet won't help, why wear it?

Thirdly, is is possible (some sources state likely) that helmets
contribute to the rate of rotational injury, a type of injury that
requires a force much, much less than that of impact.

If wearing a helmet might change a minor scrape into a serious injury,
why wear it?

Only motor vehicle accidents account for more brain
injuries.


Well, then, let's have helmets for motorists - the helmet
manufacturers and MHL crazies should be salivating at that one...


Uncomfortable is not a reason to kill yourself. Duh? But you are rather
ignorant to post what you did.


It is rather the ignorance of the facts in re helmet use and (lack of)
effect on injury rates that is showing, and in your post, not mine.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:33:32 GMT, "nash"
wrote:

And are
you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
contributed to the injury?


He was not wearing a helmut. -insubstantial errors on my part- that was 3
years ago for gosh sakes.
Proof you should start wearing yours.


Perhaps you should look up "risk compensation" and spend a little more
time considering the effect a helmet might have - the poor child
usually wore one, and so would develop habits and practices that could
be more dangerous, in the erroneous belief that he was magically
protected. Helmet or no, when he attempted whatever trick or stunt
that resulted in the fall, it is possible that he did so because he
usually wore a helmet.

Helmets do not have to be worn to have an effect.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Mar 2007 09:08:22 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson:

It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous
world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if
you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in
America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the
swing set in the local park.

But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive
paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction
and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike
fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles
get ridden between such incidents?

Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And
those are so confusing, aren't they?


Let's ask Bill a math question:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.

It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet.


Let's ask di a statistics question:

How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases?

And if the answer is zero then why wear one?

If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet?


Should we put that on your tomb stone bud?

On Mar 24, 10:55 am, j "the liar" wrote:

reams of taylorblather snipped

Helmets do not have to be worn to have an effect.


But condoms do. Pity the entity that fathered you didn't know that
simple fact.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" wrote:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.

It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet.


Let's ask di a statistics question:

How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases?

And if the answer is zero then why wear one?

Prove your "zero" statistic, but I won't buy it because statistics are easy
to manipulate and bent into any desired result. I just know what happens
in my little world, which is at least 5 or 6 people who have crashed and
were ok, except for their helmets which were split and broken. Would their
heads been split or broken, who knows because they had enough sense to be
wearing something else that was.

Now let's ask J Taylor a question, who other than you and myself really care
if I wear a helmet or not? Since it's only you and me that care, then the
solution is simple, I win.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "di" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" wrote:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.

It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet.


Let's ask di a statistics question:

How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases?

And if the answer is zero then why wear one?

Prove your "zero" statistic,

www.cyclehelmets.org