Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/18/2019 12:18 AM, 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 :-)

They actually do come with stickers that say something like "No helmet
can protect against every foreseeable impact." I think it's their way of
avoiding lawsuits when the things don't work.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts?

Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are
demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance.

Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very
accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and
running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph.
Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts
(and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash.

Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a
decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is
dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph.
Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration.

The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees
linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago,
but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational
accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt
to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be
exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no
body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated
head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets
don't demonstrate any large scale benefit.

And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there
were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet
industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because
truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn
while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled
from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and
necessary life saving products.

Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts.
Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since
they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire
or ability to actually think about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 3:51:20 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? I'll admit, though, that I am a backslider. I promised not to eat the cupcakes my wife bought for Valentines Day . . . and I did! I need to dump the holiday weight. I was struggling to hang with my best cycling buddy yesterday. While I'm talking about yesterday's ride, the two of us could not get away from the droves of sport/racing cyclists on our chosen route. It was like a Mayfly hatch of cyclists -- and it was raining for christsake. When I go on a ride with a friend, I hate getting stuck in a de facto pack.

That wasn't meant as an insult Jay. I was describing how you as a most rational of people can hold leftist beliefs that all people are equal despite massive intellectual differences. Being higher or lower IQ doesn't make you less but it does mean that you cannot be equal in the jobs you do. As a lawyer you pretty much have to have an IQ above 120. Maybe 130. Cops are purposely hired with IQ's of about average. That doesn't make you better but neither does it make you equal Pretending that it does means that your view of society is not to correct for these differences but to pretend that they don't exist.

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:32:48 PM UTC-8, 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

Frank, while the helmet business is trying to sell helmets so what? Everyone is trying to sell the most preposterous things. It is the small truth underlying the use of helmets that is actually good for the average rider - that in the most common of accidents the helmet can protect you from minor injuries. You can accept that or not. Because others have allowed themselves to be propagandized doesn't mean that the grain of truth has disappeared.

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.

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?

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 Krygowski

On 2/18/2019 1:53 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:32:48 PM UTC-8, 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

Frank, while the helmet business is trying to sell helmets so what? Everyone is trying to sell the most preposterous things. It is the small truth underlying the use of helmets that is actually good for the average rider - that in the most common of accidents the helmet can protect you from minor injuries. You can accept that or not. Because others have allowed themselves to be propagandized doesn't mean that the grain of truth has disappeared.

So why is what you call a "grain of truth" valid only for riding bikes?

Why not for all the other more common sources of "minor injuries"?

Why should we accept the false advertising, false promotion and even
mandating purchases of a commercial product?

Why discriminate against bike riders? Why discourage cycling?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/18/2019 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 1:53 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:32:48 PM UTC-8, 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

Frank, while the helmet business is trying to sell helmets so what? Everyone is trying to sell the most preposterous things. It is the small truth underlying the use of helmets that is actually good for the average rider - that in the most common of accidents the helmet can protect you from minor injuries. You can accept that or not. Because others have allowed themselves to be propagandized doesn't mean that the grain of truth has disappeared.

So why is what you call a "grain of truth" valid only for riding bikes?

Why not for all the other more common sources of "minor injuries"?

Why should we accept the false advertising, false promotion and even
mandating purchases of a commercial product?

Why discriminate against bike riders? Why discourage cycling?

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

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:10:07 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts?

Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are
demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance.

Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very
accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and
running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph.
Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts
(and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash.

Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a
decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is
dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph.
Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration.

The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees
linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago,
but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational
accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt
to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be
exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no
body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated
head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets
don't demonstrate any large scale benefit.

And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there
were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet
industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because
truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn
while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled
from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and
necessary life saving products.

Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts.
Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since
they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire
or ability to actually think about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, minus the ad hominem and other nastiness that are inseparable from discussing anything at all with you, Franki-boy, that's a sort of an answer. But I knew all that, and so, I suspect, did most of the posters here. We've heard it all before, and it's a bore.

However, you've missed the point of my posts, either deliberately or because your mind runs on the railroad tracks of your obsession. I wasn't comparing the relative efficacy of automobilist and bicyclist protection. I was pointing out that the philosophical justification for mandatory car seatbelt laws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws are the same, and that those who resist or accept the principle of one must do the same for the other, or be labelled irrational.

Moving on to effective bicycle helmets, I would expect modern materials and knowledge to provide a solution. For instance, I can easily conceive of a bicycle helmet growing out of a HANS (a head and neck restraint against whiplash) as a sort of bowl of the same plastic as the HANS is made from, the bowl and as much of the lower part of the plastic surface of the HANS filled with D30, a military chemical compound used behind the outer skins of tanks; the compound goes hard in a microsecond and takes up all the shock of the impact. HANS devices are proven in automobile racing. D30 is proven in military use. I throw my expensive iPhone skinned in leather with D30 inside on concrete floors to demonstrate the amazing qualities of the stuff. In mass production it needn't cost more than helmets today (which I suspect have a huge markup of which most is spent on marketing).

Let us therefore say that my suggestion, or any other plan for an effective lightweight cycling helmet proves workable, would you still object to a mandatory helmet law? Or would you by analogy with mandatory car seatbelt laws agree that a mandatory helmet law is a good thing?

Andre Jute
Bicycle helmets are not the hill to die on