Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

On 24 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 24, 11:14 am, "nash" wrote:

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.

It just takes one time, all right.

Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in
Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any
other developed country. What's the major source of head injury
fatalities?

Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source,
despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of
them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on
rollerblades, for that matter).

Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have
nothing to do with bikes.

But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How
odd.


And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's.

wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 24, 11:14 am, "nash" wrote:

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.

It just takes one time, all right.

Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in
Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any
other developed country. What's the major source of head injury
fatalities?

Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source,
despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of
them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on
rollerblades, for that matter).

Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have
nothing to do with bikes.

But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How
odd.


And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's.

This is so twisted I hardly know what we were discussing.
The Surrey teen did not train without a helmut therefore he failed.
If no one wore a helmut would you wear one just for your educated self or
not wear one to be like everyone else who may or may not be cool and
uneducated.
If a Ball team practices against a certain offense from another ball team
and at finals they use an offense they never used the practice would be
forfeit and they would most likely lose to the offense because they were not
prepared for other systems.
Murphys law in both games, ball or helmuted/ unhelmuted teen.

On Mar 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" wrote:
If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet?


Should we put that on your tomb stone bud?

If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in
the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim.

Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists.
You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own
homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the
total.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 24, 1:03 pm, wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0700, wrote:





On Mar 24, 11:14 am, "nash" wrote:

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.

It just takes one time, all right.

Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in
Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any
other developed country. What's the major source of head injury
fatalities?

Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source,
despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of
them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on
rollerblades, for that matter).

Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have
nothing to do with bikes.

But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How
odd.

And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's


"we have ozark" what, "j"? Calling you a liar? Yep, you're a liar.
Calling you an obsessed nutball? Yep, you're an obsessed nutball. I
think eveyone can see that you're nuttier than the holiday fruitcake.

On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, "di" wrote:
wrote in message

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.

Hmm. Not into math, I see.

Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries
are 99% of the problem, right?

Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is
quite normal and not at all excessive?

So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head
injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home -
does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury?

- Frank Krygowski

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, "di" wrote:
wrote in message

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.

Hmm. Not into math, I see.

Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries
are 99% of the problem, right?

What problem?

Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is
quite normal and not at all excessive?

It only takes one injury, then anything normal is gone forever.

So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head
injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home -
does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury?

Would you feel better if we wore helments when riding in a car? If I
remember correctly, we have other protection, seat belts, air bags, hard
metal all around us, all which is not available on a bicycle.

- Frank Krygowski

This all would really be humorus if you guys weren't so obsessively serious.

I supposed you would also try to play sports without proper protective
equipment, drive without seatbelts, refuse to wear eye protection when using
power equipment, etc.

On Mar 24, 4:54 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, "di" wrote:
wrote in message

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.

Hmm. Not into math, I see.

Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries
are 99% of the problem, right?

Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is
quite normal and not at all excessive?

So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head
injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home -
does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury?

Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL

HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. How many more drivers and passengers are there
than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists?

Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers?
Home-dwellers? Of course it does.

That's why they make protective gear for various activities. Avail yourself
of it, or don't. Who cares?


"Who cares?" That's easy for you - a normal guy with something going
on in your life - to say. But think of poor lil' Franky
Krygowski.....without his anti-helmet crusade, the sad old duffer has
absolutely *nothing* going on in his life. It gives him a reason to
get out of bed each morning. So, of course he CARES. Why else would he
drone on and on and on, again and again and again with the same-same-
same regugitated bull**** about how helmets are ruining everyone's
life?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, "di" wrote:
wrote in message

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.

Hmm. Not into math, I see.

Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries
are 99% of the problem, right?

Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is
quite normal and not at all excessive?

So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head
injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home -
does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury?

Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL

HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS.

Oh oh. Bill Sornson doing numbers; this spells trouble, folks...

How many more drivers and passengers are there
than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists?

Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers?
Home-dwellers? Of course it does.


Well, not, a higher percentage of cyclists does NOT get injured than
drivers, or home dwellers.

Odds of dying due to injury per year of activity (that's a bit under
9000 hours) are

pedalcyclist - one in 381963

car occupant - one in 18412

falls involving bed,chair, or other furniture - one in 347076

(this last is only a _single_ one of the many categories of possible
death causes for home-dwellers)

source: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Now, of course, these are figures from just the USofA, and those are
based only on the death rate among the population for one year (2003),
so the numbers may be different in other countries or other years -
but from the above numbers, cycling injuries are roughly twenty times
less likely to result in death than those sustained in motorvehicle
accidents.

Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_
rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity:

injury per 1 million population

cycles 453, cars 987

injury per 1 million miles

cycles 15, cars 99

source: http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html

Now Bill, time to dust off that trusty calculator...but remember to
count how many digits it has (using you fingers is allowed, as is
counting out loud - nobody's watching).

wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:45 pm, "di" wrote:
wrote in message

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.

Hmm. Not into math, I see.

Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries
are 99% of the problem, right?

Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is
quite normal and not at all excessive?

So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head
injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home -
does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury?

Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL

HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. How many more drivers and passengers are there
than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists?

Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers?
Home-dwellers? Of course it does.

That's why they make protective gear for various activities. Avail yourself
of it, or don't. Who cares?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_
rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity:

injury per 1 million population

cycles 453, cars 987

What's the numbers, out of 1 million population, may be 990,000+ ride in
cars, maybe 1,000 ride cycles.