Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

"Dan O" wrote in message
...

Look, Frank, I agree that most people don't need a helmet for typical
bike riding. I agree that public policy and force of opinion should
emphasize other safety precautions much more. What I don't like is
your smarrmy messages re; I don't ride properly (or competently), or
think properly or competently, etc. Okay?

+1

Just like Kow Kow you've heard it before
Get back Gangster don't you open the door
Space Cowboy's back to even the score

+2

On Jan 7, 7:49*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Dan O" wrote in message

...

*What I don't like is
your smarmy messages re; I don't ride properly (or competently), or
think properly or competently, etc. *Okay?

+1

+ 2

Frank Krygowski is a first class ****TARD who hijacks discussion
groups!
Can I get witness?
DR

On Jan 5, 8:10 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:49 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Jan 4, 7:44 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) It can be very exasperating.

Dan, wear a helmet if you like. Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? Fine. Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. And I'll produce data to prove it.

Please cite where I've ever said any of the above.

First cite where I claimed you did.

Alternately, find someone to explain the meaning of "If."

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.


Or exasperated.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/..._reasoning.pdf

I got 80% - misread one question and gave inverse answer, and the
other one, yeah, I should have thought about it a while longer, but it
took me less than 10 minutes to finish... and it's just a practice
test anyway... hmm... maybe I should apply w/ the CIA... :-)

On Jan 7, 7:20 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:10 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 4, 11:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Jan 4, 7:44 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) It can be very exasperating.

Dan, wear a helmet if you like. Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? Fine. Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. And I'll produce data to prove it.

Please cite where I've ever said any of the above.

First cite where I claimed you did.

Alternately, find someone to explain the meaning of "If."

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.

Or exasperated.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/...s/research/log...

I got 80% - misread one question and gave inverse answer, and the
other one, yeah, I should have thought about it a while longer, but it
took me less than 10 minutes to finish... and it's just a practice
test anyway... hmm... maybe I should apply w/ the CIA... :-)

Dude! You and me are *tied* for stars in our GG profiles! :-)

On Jan 7, 7:20 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:10 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 4, 11:49 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Jan 4, 7:44 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) It can be very exasperating.

Dan, wear a helmet if you like. Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? Fine. Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. And I'll produce data to prove it.

Please cite where I've ever said any of the above.

First cite where I claimed you did.

Alternately, find someone to explain the meaning of "If."

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.

Or exasperated.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/...s/research/log...

I got 80% - misread one question and gave inverse answer, and the
other one, yeah, I should have thought about it a while longer, but it
took me less than 10 minutes to finish... and it's just a practice
test anyway... hmm... maybe I should apply w/ the CIA... :-)

So now I will have a beer and give peace a chance, but make clear that
the leading ellipses is Frank's snip

On Jan 4, 8:43*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 4, 6:02 pm, wrote:

Landotter.com wrote:

*http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

I find too much focus o right or wrong for bicycling helmets. *I
started bicycle competition long enough ago that there weren't any
testing or design laws for them. *There was the flimsy foam rubber
filled satin leather mesh one was required to wear from ABL rules of
racing. *One thing those protectors didn't do was to crumble and turn
to styrofoam pellets.

We were not thrilled with them but Jim Gentes of the San Jose Bike
Club introduced the styrofoam "GIRO" helmet, so named after the Giro
d'Italia professional race. *That for me was the beginning of
non-scientific safety legislation.

I think just about everybody here defending their own choice to wear a
helmet at least sometimes is not making any statement about right or
wrong - not harping, not urging, etc.

I think Andresmuro summed it up beautifully for me in this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...64c67d187931eb

I think that's essentially what many of us are trying to say. *Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) *It can be very exasperating.

Can you sum up for us what Frank's agenda is? I'd like to compare
your version of it to Frank's own, stated agenda.

On Jan 6, 2:53*am, James wrote:
On Jan 6, 6:33*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 1/5/2011 3:13 PM, James StewarD wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote:

And why do the people posting here who worry about bike head injuries
not worry as much about car head injuries?

I have never been injured in a car accident.

I have been injured multiple times in cycling accidents.

Ask Jay also.

Wow, a sample size of N = 2 ! ! !

Would you like to find some statistics of people who cycle and drive a
car who have suffered head injuries from either mode of transport?

Personal experience is enough for me to know that cycling is
dangerous, and that for me at least, wearing a helmet is not difficult
nor a discomfort and may improve my chances of survival should I
bounce my scone off a hard surface. *Whether I have 10 cycling
accidents where I only suffer a grazes and bruises and 1 car accident
that kills me remains to be seen.

JS.

Why are you willingly engaging in an activity you recognize as
dangerous? There are a number of ways in which you can be fatally
injured and die while cycling, yet only take care to try to prevent
one of them. I've nearly been impaled on more than one occasion off-
roading, WHILE wearing a helmet. At least the news article that
reported my death from exsanguination would have reported that I had a
helmet on my head.

On Jan 7, 7:57*pm, James wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:01*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 6, 11:49*pm, James wrote:
*To improve my record I'll need to start skulking around the back
roads and cycle tracks.

I doubt that. *I certainly don't ride only back roads and cycle tracks
- indeed, I'm rarely on the latter - yet I seem to crash far less than
you do. *I think you should realize that there are things you need to
learn.

I think you ride slower on roads where the average motorist is more
sympathetic toward cyclists.

That's your guess, with no evidence. And it's wrong.

I'm slower than I used to be. I'm old. But my flat ground cruising
speed is still 17 to 18 mph. Most people consider that reasonably
fast. And every ride to work has always taken me down either a 3/4
mile 25+ mph hill, or a half mile 30 mph hill. My all time top speed
is just under 55 mph, because a car kept me from going faster.

Traffic volume? To get to the shopping areas nearby, or to ride to my
daughter's (50 miles away) I ride miles on a five lane arterial.
Traffic counts range from about 30,000 vehicles per day near my home
to 40,000 a mile or two further away.

I've seen quite a few people over the years claim riding is especially
dangerous in _their_ area. I don't claim all areas are precisely
equal, but I think most of those claims are wrong. (We recently had
Duane claiming that Quebec was terrible. Data showed he was wrong.)

Now maybe it is true that riding is very dangerous for you. But if
so, it's likely because you have more to learn. Try reading and
studying _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. You've given us plenty of
evidence that it would do you good.

Really, why not spend a few bucks on the book? What could it hurt?
Do you really think you know _everything_ about riding?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 7, 8:47 pm, robin2660 wrote:
On Jan 4, 8:43 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Jan 4, 6:02 pm, wrote:

Landotter.com wrote:

http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

I find too much focus o right or wrong for bicycling helmets. I
started bicycle competition long enough ago that there weren't any
testing or design laws for them. There was the flimsy foam rubber
filled satin leather mesh one was required to wear from ABL rules of
racing. One thing those protectors didn't do was to crumble and turn
to styrofoam pellets.

We were not thrilled with them but Jim Gentes of the San Jose Bike
Club introduced the styrofoam "GIRO" helmet, so named after the Giro
d'Italia professional race. That for me was the beginning of
non-scientific safety legislation.

I think just about everybody here defending their own choice to wear a
helmet at least sometimes is not making any statement about right or
wrong - not harping, not urging, etc.

I think Andresmuro summed it up beautifully for me in this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...64c67d187931eb

I think that's essentially what many of us are trying to say. Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) It can be very exasperating.

Can you sum up for us what Frank's agenda is? I'd like to compare
your version of it to Frank's own, stated agenda.

Well, his stated agenda seems to be to discourage people harping on
the dangers of bicycling and/or urging helmet use.

I *know* I'm not urging helmet use, and I don't think I'm "harping" on
dangers to merely acknowledge the existence of some and say that I
think there are infinite variables affecting their degree, so I would
sincerely appreciate it if he'd take that "not doing it properly" and
"not thinking clearly" crap elsewhere.

Like other before me, though, I think my tolerance for it is about run
out.

On Jan 7, 8:43*pm, Dan O wrote:

Frank can't accept or even grasp the fact that statistics on other
people's activities may be less relevant to individual risk assessment
than the individual's own awareness of his own activities.

:-) Is that like saying "My odds of winning the lottery jackpot are
WAY better than other people!" Are you one of those people who have a
system for picking those random numbers?

*Nobody is
accounting for me or any of my activities in any of these "studies",
and if they were, the conclusion would be melded into some sort of
"average". *Based on observation of how most other people ride bike, I
imagine such averaging would greatly water down much of my risk
assessment, yet he calls if "proof".

Dan, you've taken great pleasure in describing your riding style.
You've described countless "wheeljies" (did I spell that right?) all
over the place, zooming on and off sidewalks, jumping ramps and curbs
and all sorts of other weird tricks. Yes, I agree: If you ride like
that, I think your riding is more dangerous than average. And the fix
isn't a helmet.

But keep in mind, the "average" data on bike crashes includes all the
people we see riding facing traffic, blowing stop signs and traffic
lights, riding at night with no lights, skulking in the gutter, etc.
I don't think it takes much to be way better than average.


Moreover, he is apparently extraordinarily inexperienced when it comes
to crashes. *Does that stop him pretending to know what he's talking
about?

Are you claiming to learn to avoid crashing, you should take advice
from someone who crashes all the time??

Wow.

- Frank Krygowski