A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old February 20th 19, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:52:38 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.


Hmm. See, Franki-boy, not only have I put up data, which you refused to discuss because even you know you have no answers to such conclusive data, my data proved:
1. That cycling is safer than you claimed before you started using my figures, which coincidentally also proved you don't know how to handle statistics, and through your clumsiness were making cycling seem more dangerous than it is.
2.That a substantial number of cyclists' lives, up to perhaps 400, can be saved in America every year if helmets were mandatory, which could come to more than half of the cyclists killed on American roads every year, a conclusion you inhumanely dismissed as irrelevant because so few cyclists die every year that it isn't worth saving half of them... For future reference, Franki-boy, the correct answer is that even one life saved is worth the effort: it could be your life.
3. That it is therefore counterproductive dimwits like you who put people off cycling, by contributing to the belief that cycling is dangerous, and that the self-appointed "spokesmen for cycling" do not care about the lives of cyclists.

You want to be the friend of cycling, Franki-boy, you should shut the **** up, for good.

You won't, of course. You're too full of yourself, which is the same as saying you're too full of ****.

Andre Jute
Professional publicist
Ads
  #162  
Old February 21st 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/20/2019 4:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:52:38 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.


Hmm. See, Franki-boy, not only have I put up data, which you refused to discuss because even you know you have no answers to such conclusive data, my data proved:
1. That cycling is safer than you claimed before you started using my figures, which coincidentally also proved you don't know how to handle statistics, and through your clumsiness were making cycling seem more dangerous than it is.
2.That a substantial number of cyclists' lives, up to perhaps 400, can be saved in America every year if helmets were mandatory, which could come to more than half of the cyclists killed on American roads every year, a conclusion you inhumanely dismissed as irrelevant because so few cyclists die every year that it isn't worth saving half of them... For future reference, Franki-boy, the correct answer is that even one life saved is worth the effort: it could be your life.
3. That it is therefore counterproductive dimwits like you who put people off cycling, by contributing to the belief that cycling is dangerous, and that the self-appointed "spokesmen for cycling" do not care about the lives of cyclists.

You want to be the friend of cycling, Franki-boy, you should shut the **** up, for good.

You won't, of course. You're too full of yourself, which is the same as saying you're too full of ****.

Andre Jute
Professional publicist


Why are you so willfully blind to pedestrians eaten alive?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...218-story.html

Something must be done! We need more laws!

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


  #163  
Old February 21st 19, 12:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:43:43 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

I've been in countless crashes and my head was
never once injured by violent twisting motion.



You're wearing the wrong bicycle helmet. Trying reverting to one of the
Bell "mushrooms". That will increase your chances and broaden your
experience and knowledge.
  #164  
Old February 21st 19, 03:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:

We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.


Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack.


Please be honest. The point of citing that paper [Powell, et. al., 1998]
was not to say gardeners should wear helmets. The point was to show that
compared to other normal activities, bicycling is not terribly
dangerous, despite propaganda that claims it is.

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares.


Most bicyclists who say "I never ride without a helmet" probably don't
care! To one degree or another, they've bought into the propaganda
claiming 1) bicycling is really dangerous and 2) helmets make it so much
safer that they are really worth wearing and promoting. Since those
riders don't question those points, they don't examine the relevant data.

But both of those points are demonstrably wrong. Accepting them without
question does contribute to discrimination against cycling.

Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain.


So why should it NOT be the first safety tip taught to kids walking home
from school, or to other pedestrians? Why is it not publicized to
motorists as often as seatbelt use?

Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times.


I do ride in rain, Jay. I avoid it when I can, but there are times I
can't avoid it, so I put up with it. And I ride in snow and ice
conditions. I don't ride far, but I've done it within the last couple of
weeks.

You're correct, though, that I do remain upright. I haven't crashed on
the bike for over ten years now (when our tandem forks broke), and
before that, for over 15 years, when I skinned my knee a little bit in
my first ever moving on-road fall. So what's better - to put on a
helmet, feel protected and ride so you crash frequently? Or to not use a
helmet and never have a serious crash?

For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.


Yeah, as if the "elite" riders are the ones with scars and broken
helmets! How macho!


How about I ride my bike (almost) everyday year round regardless of conditions, although I did take a snow day off this year. I ride at night, frequently in the rain, with bicycle and auto traffic in a major city. I am not representative of the average case in the various case studies, or to put it another way, they are not representative of my cohort. National averages tell me virtually nothing about my personal risk.

But if a case study doesn't agree with your preconceptions, that doesn't
mean it's a "****ty case study." It could be that your preconceptions
are wrong. The serious way of examining the validity of the study is to
read it, discuss it, point out the errors you find, etc. I've done that
with some "Danger! Danger!" studies like Hoffman 2010. Why don't you do
it with Powell et.al.?


I'll call your Hoffman and raise it two Powells! The safe approach is to ignore both of them and wait for the next landmark study to come along proving something entirely different.

Moreover, bicyclists are road users. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets.. Even the electric scooter riders have to wear helmets.


First, as mentioned several times: Motorcycling's fatality per hour risk
is over 30 times greater than that of bicycling. And if you carefully
examine a motorcycle helmet, you _may_ find that it's significantly
different than a bicycle helmet. Despite the simplistic claim of
similarity from those who can count all the way to two ("Look! Two
wheels!") the situations and the risks are far from equivalent.

Besides, in my state adult motorcyclists do not have to wear helmets.
The same is true in four of the five adjacent states.

But please be clear: Are you now lobbying for a mandatory helmet law for
bicyclists? We used to get that on this forum, but most of those busy
bodies have stopped trying to take on a nanny role.


I'm lobbying for a helmet law applicable only to you -- just because I know it would **** you off.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #165  
Old February 21st 19, 03:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/20/2019 9:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:

We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.

Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack.


Please be honest. The point of citing that paper [Powell, et. al., 1998]
was not to say gardeners should wear helmets. The point was to show that
compared to other normal activities, bicycling is not terribly
dangerous, despite propaganda that claims it is.

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares.


Most bicyclists who say "I never ride without a helmet" probably don't
care! To one degree or another, they've bought into the propaganda
claiming 1) bicycling is really dangerous and 2) helmets make it so much
safer that they are really worth wearing and promoting. Since those
riders don't question those points, they don't examine the relevant data.

But both of those points are demonstrably wrong. Accepting them without
question does contribute to discrimination against cycling.

Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain.


So why should it NOT be the first safety tip taught to kids walking home
from school, or to other pedestrians? Why is it not publicized to
motorists as often as seatbelt use?

Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times.


I do ride in rain, Jay. I avoid it when I can, but there are times I
can't avoid it, so I put up with it. And I ride in snow and ice
conditions. I don't ride far, but I've done it within the last couple of
weeks.

You're correct, though, that I do remain upright. I haven't crashed on
the bike for over ten years now (when our tandem forks broke), and
before that, for over 15 years, when I skinned my knee a little bit in
my first ever moving on-road fall. So what's better - to put on a
helmet, feel protected and ride so you crash frequently? Or to not use a
helmet and never have a serious crash?

For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.


Yeah, as if the "elite" riders are the ones with scars and broken
helmets! How macho!


How about I ride my bike (almost) everyday year round regardless of conditions, although I did take a snow day off this year. I ride at night, frequently in the rain, with bicycle and auto traffic in a major city. I am not representative of the average case in the various case studies, or to put it another way, they are not representative of my cohort. National averages tell me virtually nothing about my personal risk.


And you're welcome to wear whatever you like. But perhaps instead of
touting bike helmets as you do, you might say something like "I've
crashed so much I need whatever tiny protection they may give." That
would give a more realistic picture to the great majority of people who
- as predicted by elementary statistics - actually are close to average.

And perhaps you shouldn't credit my lack of crashing to magic? I think
there's something to be said for riding within the limits of one's
abilities.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #166  
Old February 21st 19, 04:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:47:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2019 9:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:

We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.

Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack.

Please be honest. The point of citing that paper [Powell, et. al., 1998]
was not to say gardeners should wear helmets. The point was to show that
compared to other normal activities, bicycling is not terribly
dangerous, despite propaganda that claims it is.

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares.

Most bicyclists who say "I never ride without a helmet" probably don't
care! To one degree or another, they've bought into the propaganda
claiming 1) bicycling is really dangerous and 2) helmets make it so much
safer that they are really worth wearing and promoting. Since those
riders don't question those points, they don't examine the relevant data.

But both of those points are demonstrably wrong. Accepting them without
question does contribute to discrimination against cycling.

Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain.

So why should it NOT be the first safety tip taught to kids walking home
from school, or to other pedestrians? Why is it not publicized to
motorists as often as seatbelt use?

Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times.

I do ride in rain, Jay. I avoid it when I can, but there are times I
can't avoid it, so I put up with it. And I ride in snow and ice
conditions. I don't ride far, but I've done it within the last couple of
weeks.

You're correct, though, that I do remain upright. I haven't crashed on
the bike for over ten years now (when our tandem forks broke), and
before that, for over 15 years, when I skinned my knee a little bit in
my first ever moving on-road fall. So what's better - to put on a
helmet, feel protected and ride so you crash frequently? Or to not use a
helmet and never have a serious crash?

For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.

Yeah, as if the "elite" riders are the ones with scars and broken
helmets! How macho!


How about I ride my bike (almost) everyday year round regardless of conditions, although I did take a snow day off this year. I ride at night, frequently in the rain, with bicycle and auto traffic in a major city. I am not representative of the average case in the various case studies, or to put it another way, they are not representative of my cohort. National averages tell me virtually nothing about my personal risk.


And you're welcome to wear whatever you like. But perhaps instead of
touting bike helmets as you do, you might say something like "I've
crashed so much I need whatever tiny protection they may give." That
would give a more realistic picture to the great majority of people who
- as predicted by elementary statistics - actually are close to average.

And perhaps you shouldn't credit my lack of crashing to magic? I think
there's something to be said for riding within the limits of one's
abilities.


Generally speaking safety agencies, The National Safety Council, etc.,
seem to agree that the majority of "accidents" are the result of
unsafe acts of persons and if I remember correctly the Air Force
Safety Manual stated that "accidents" caused by unsafe acts of persons
were in the 90+ percentage region.

If these agencies are correct then "accident prone" is hardly the
correct term to apply.

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #167  
Old February 21st 19, 05:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 6:47:19 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 9:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:52:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:

We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.

Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack.

Please be honest. The point of citing that paper [Powell, et. al., 1998]
was not to say gardeners should wear helmets. The point was to show that
compared to other normal activities, bicycling is not terribly
dangerous, despite propaganda that claims it is.

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares.

Most bicyclists who say "I never ride without a helmet" probably don't
care! To one degree or another, they've bought into the propaganda
claiming 1) bicycling is really dangerous and 2) helmets make it so much
safer that they are really worth wearing and promoting. Since those
riders don't question those points, they don't examine the relevant data.

But both of those points are demonstrably wrong. Accepting them without
question does contribute to discrimination against cycling.

Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain.

So why should it NOT be the first safety tip taught to kids walking home
from school, or to other pedestrians? Why is it not publicized to
motorists as often as seatbelt use?

Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times.

I do ride in rain, Jay. I avoid it when I can, but there are times I
can't avoid it, so I put up with it. And I ride in snow and ice
conditions. I don't ride far, but I've done it within the last couple of
weeks.

You're correct, though, that I do remain upright. I haven't crashed on
the bike for over ten years now (when our tandem forks broke), and
before that, for over 15 years, when I skinned my knee a little bit in
my first ever moving on-road fall. So what's better - to put on a
helmet, feel protected and ride so you crash frequently? Or to not use a
helmet and never have a serious crash?

For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.

Yeah, as if the "elite" riders are the ones with scars and broken
helmets! How macho!


How about I ride my bike (almost) everyday year round regardless of conditions, although I did take a snow day off this year. I ride at night, frequently in the rain, with bicycle and auto traffic in a major city. I am not representative of the average case in the various case studies, or to put it another way, they are not representative of my cohort. National averages tell me virtually nothing about my personal risk.


And you're welcome to wear whatever you like. But perhaps instead of
touting bike helmets as you do, you might say something like "I've
crashed so much I need whatever tiny protection they may give." That
would give a more realistic picture to the great majority of people who
- as predicted by elementary statistics - actually are close to average.

And perhaps you shouldn't credit my lack of crashing to magic? I think
there's something to be said for riding within the limits of one's
abilities.


That and not riding in ice or at night on rain soaked roads with hidden pot holes or on broken wet cement on tires with clay-based pigments or Umma Gummas that were pulled from the market. It also helps not to have you son crash in front of you on a slippery descent. My lovely Zaffiros did not have enough grip to keep me from sliding down a sled hill this morning -- the discs were great. I doubt you often encounter hills where you keep going even when your wheels are stopped. https://tinyurl.com/y53jrl9d I about slid through the stop sign. That was on 32mm semi-slicks. Do you ever ride on moss? I ride in rain the equivalent of four solid months a year, in traffic with lots of other cyclists, walkers, dogs -- often in the dark. There are a lot of reasons for crashing that do not suggest incompetence.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #168  
Old February 21st 19, 08:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:39:21 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2019 4:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:52:38 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.


Hmm. See, Franki-boy, not only have I put up data, which you refused to discuss because even you know you have no answers to such conclusive data, my data proved:
1. That cycling is safer than you claimed before you started using my figures, which coincidentally also proved you don't know how to handle statistics, and through your clumsiness were making cycling seem more dangerous than it is.
2.That a substantial number of cyclists' lives, up to perhaps 400, can be saved in America every year if helmets were mandatory, which could come to more than half of the cyclists killed on American roads every year, a conclusion you inhumanely dismissed as irrelevant because so few cyclists die every year that it isn't worth saving half of them... For future reference, Franki-boy, the correct answer is that even one life saved is worth the effort: it could be your life.
3. That it is therefore counterproductive dimwits like you who put people off cycling, by contributing to the belief that cycling is dangerous, and that the self-appointed "spokesmen for cycling" do not care about the lives of cyclists.

You want to be the friend of cycling, Franki-boy, you should shut the **** up, for good.

You won't, of course. You're too full of yourself, which is the same as saying you're too full of ****.

Andre Jute
Professional publicist


Why are you so willfully blind to pedestrians eaten alive?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...218-story.html

Something must be done! We need more laws!

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


I haven't seen the report you refer to. The Daily News reports that Mrs Merkel is keeping them out of the EU with her $50m fines for not agreeing with her: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."

Why are you so willfully blind to pedestrians eaten alive?


I had plenty of opportunities to interface close-up with crocodiles in Africa,
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show...mment_34615372
and in the end concluded an arrangement with the dumb water-lizards for the ages and all the generations: I wouldn't blow up their rivers with gelignite (the stuff that bleeds from dynamite sticks when you sweat it in a cast iron frying pan over an open fire) and they would eat pedestrians instead of me.

Anyway, I'm trying to give Franki-boy to the pedestrians as their spokesman so he can explain to the crocodiles why they should eat only pedestrians because pedestrians haven't yet made their statistical quota of fatalities for the year.

AJ
  #169  
Old February 21st 19, 06:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/20/2019 11:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 6:47:19 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And perhaps you shouldn't credit my lack of crashing to magic? I think
there's something to be said for riding within the limits of one's
abilities.


That and not riding in ice or at night on rain soaked roads with hidden pot holes or on broken wet cement...


Except that I've done all those things!

on tires with clay-based pigments or Umma Gummas that were pulled from the market.


OK, I haven't done that one.

It also helps not to have you son crash in front of you on a slippery descent.


I've ridden with people who have crashed. I pay attention to the
behavior of riders, and I don't draft any but the best.

But if I were in a slippery descent, I think I'd take it a lot slower
than you. I don't see any sense in pushing for speed in risky situations.

I doubt you often encounter hills where you keep going even when your wheels are stopped. https://tinyurl.com/y53jrl9d I about slid through the stop sign. That was on 32mm semi-slicks. Do you ever ride on moss? I ride in rain the equivalent of four solid months a year, in traffic with lots of other cyclists, walkers, dogs -- often in the dark. There are a lot of reasons for crashing that do not suggest incompetence.


Our philosophies differ. I think that most times a cyclist crashes, it's
for reasons that could have and should have been foreseen. So potholes?
In my commuting days, I was rarely surprised by them. I knew the
stretches of road where they first appeared - often where the pavement
was partly shaded by trees, for example. Corners? I watch for gravel.
Dogs? High alert every time, leashed or not.

There were many years I tried to be fast, usually time trialing home
from work. I might do some slightly tricky moves as part of that,
notably jumping a set of angled railroad tracks. But it was within my
level of skill (since I always did it successfully). And where things
were more uncertain, like corners that sometimes had gravel, I was more
conservative.

I may have told this story before, but on one ride with my daughter, we
approached a set of railroad tracks just after a rain. I said "Be
careful, the tracks are going to be slippery." The kid said "Oh, Dad!!"
in the way kids are programmed to do. Then she dumped onto the ground.

We were almost side by side, going the same speed. But I think I was
more careful than she was, to ride perfectly straight and not jerk the
bike. Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think it was last week that I rode to the library on icy streets. To
tell the truth, I didn't realize they were as icy as they were; if I
had, I might not have taken the bike. But I did keep going - very, very
slowly and carefully. There were times I was riding at 3 mph on icy
turns, keeping the bike as upright as possible and ready to put my foot
down instantly.

You probably would have beat me to the library. But I was happy to keep
my crash risk to a minimum.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #170  
Old February 21st 19, 07:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
On 19/02/2019 5:37 p.m., AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2019 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 1:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

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.

Scalp lacerations can be serious.Â* I'd post some grisly
pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without
skull fracture, you can get a complex
laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw
puzzle.Â* Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from
a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent
injuries that are serious by any standard.

But apparently, that's not true for the populations that
suffer the
greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar
injuries,
including real traumatic brain injury. Right?

I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the
majority of those
injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know -
motorists,
pedestrians, people walking around their own homes...

We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with
other members of
our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously
icy, including
trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more.
Nobody wore helmets
- go figure.

One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch
and went down
like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said
"Tsk - no
helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle,
then stopped
herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets!

O.K., I went down in ice on my bike face first and sliced
up my face but not my scalp.Â* The facial laceration
stopped at the helmet line.Â* Are we going to trade
anecdotes?Â* I'm not telling anyone what choice to make,
but wearing a helmet on a bike is not an idiotic or
laughable choice simply because hikers, walkers, gardeners
or showerers don't wear helmets.Â* I don't hike, walk,
garden or shower at speeds above 40mph.Â* When I hike in
the snow, I do wear crampons -- the little ones for my
walking shoes.

You're right that trading anecdotes doesn't have much value.
But please admit that _lots_ of helmet promotion is done by
trading anecdotes. It happens here, and it happens almost
every time helmets are discussed anywhere.

And let's realize that there are roughly 50,000 TBI deaths
each year in the U.S., and far more TB injuries. Each one of
those could generate at least one anecdote. If those were
examined, only a tiny proportion would have anything to do
with riding bikes.

That's one of the main fallacies about the bike helmet hype.
Bicycling is slandered as a major brain injury concern. But
the "cost to society" of bicycling's TBI count is negligible
compared to other TBI sources. It's risk per mile or per
hour is negligible as well, assuming you're not getting
crazy because you're feeling protected by your helmet. It
really is safer than pedestrian travel. Yet helmet promoters
have convinced millions of people that only fools would ever
ride without head protection.

Still, I'm not saying wearing a helmet on a bike is idiotic
or laughable. I've never ragged on any of my many, many
helmet wearing friends because of their headgear.

OTOH, I have had friends, acquaintances, and even anonymous
abusive motorists who have yelled at me, cursed at me, etc.
because I chose to ride a bike without a helmet.

Reread the article by Peter Flax. I'm far from alone.


Out there in Left field, the old LAW, which has been taken over by
communists, says the success of helmet campaigns may be measured by a
25-year high in 'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths:

https://bikeleague.org/content/press...-health-crisis


'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths? Not too much conflation, eh?


Seems a common conflation.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...


Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.


Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack. By the way, what is gardening? Is it climbing a 20 foot wall with suction cups to tend a wisteria vine? I see gardeners wearing these all the time: http://tinyurl.com/yxu3rdg8 Gardening can be super-dangerous.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares. Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain. Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times. For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.

Moreover, bicyclists are road users. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets. Even the electric scooter riders have to wear helmets.


814.534 Failure of motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear; exception; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear if the person operates a motor assisted scooter on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) A person is exempt from the protective headgear requirement of subsection (1) of this section if wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person.

(3) The first time a person is convicted of an offense under this section, the person may not be required to pay a fine if the person proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear, is a specific fine traffic violation. The presumptive fine for failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear is $25. [2001 c.749 §16; 2011 c.597 §105]


$25 buckaroos, baby! I go twice as fast as those scooter guys, so why not bikes? Are we special? I sure hope so!

-- Jay Beattie.


I see Frank as never falling. Whether he is that good a rider at 80 or whether he just rides slow and without clip-ins I don't know. But his anti-helmet stance is rather strange for a teacher.

I fall - A LOT - I fall so much I hardly pay any attention to it. I can't look up and shake my head from side to side without falling because of the effects of the concussion. But bikes balance themselves and all I have to be able to do it point them. But time after time things happen. Me looking the other way when I drove through the shadows of a tree and the root system had raised the asphalt and I was unaware of it for instance. Or that damn car shooting a pine cone - almost a mile from the closest pine tree - under my front tire and me having poor peripheral vision so not seeing it coming. Sliding off the road and into that stone water culvert at 25 mph. Having my tire blow off the rim. All of these within the last 5 years and a whole lot of close calls where I managed to gain control - a wide crack in the road that caught my tire and as I rode along it I was losing balance and luckily the crack ended before I fell. Who would have been looking for that since I had gone over that section of road just a week before and that crack wasn't there?

In any case if you ride you are going to fall. The only way I can see to avoid it is by riding like a city commuter with fat tires, flat pedals and very slow speeds. I would have said "like a Dutch commuter" but I watched an interplay between heavy traffic and bicycles in Amsterdam and that sure didn't look slow or safe to me.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. James[_8_] Techniques 2 November 6th 14 12:57 PM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Social Issues 310 June 23rd 05 07:56 AM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Racing 17 April 27th 05 04:34 PM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] UK 14 April 26th 05 10:54 AM
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. caracol40 General 0 December 21st 04 12:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.