Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

"Dan O" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 10:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:10 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 24, 9:50 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:37 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 24, 9:23 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

yet helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?

They haven't, at least regarding serious head injuries. Look at
the
data.

Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary.http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

A lot of talk trying to explain some data. Where's the data?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html

Looks pretty constant to me. (i thought that other article said head
injuries were rising?) (And the "Notes" below are not supported by
the table.) Where's the data that shows increased helmet use? (Don't
smarm me about STFW, either.) (Really, you'd think someone who places
so much importance on seeing the data would get it together in the
first place.)

And I'd think that someone who wanted the data would look for it.

Besides, when I say, "helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?", I
don't mean good in terms of charts and graphs, I mean good in terms of
better outcomes following head impacts (which, based upon your data so
far, would appear to be inevitable). That's what they're for, right?

That data is supposed to be about people treated in hospital ER's,
right? If I smack my head hard with a helmet on, it doesn't feel much
better than when I do it without. I am just as likely to go the ER
(not likely in either case - unless I go "implied consent", or if I
need stitches or something). Whatever happens, happens. I still
think it's a no-brainer that the helmet can be worthwhile protection
against getting hurt.

(My dog in heaven - look at what I am stirring up here! That's it -
no more computer for a while.)

sigh Not much into math and science, are you, Dan?


Dude! "Nova" is my favorite show. (Well, that and "Austin City
Limits" :-) I whipped out the pumper/operator quizzes in real time
with ballpoint on scratch paper while everyone else used calculators.

Don't let it bother you. I graduated cum laudi with my comp sci degree
and he tells me the same thing. You don't need to justify yourself to
trolls.

Barry who? wrote:

Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

I'm surprised you would cite this NY Times article, which states:

# "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent
# accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of
# head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that
# riders should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can
# reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent."

Sounds like religion to me. This must be taken on faith, there being
no evidence cited, however, the article makes no effort to convince
readers that wearing a helmet makes bicycling safer.
--
Jobst Brandt

Duane Hébert wrote:

Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

I'm surprised you would cite this NY Times article, which states:

# "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent
# accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of
# head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that riders
# should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can reduce
# the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent."

You get used to it. If you don't get the same impression from the
article as Frank did, you must have problems understanding it.

amen!
--
Jobst Brandt

On 12/24/2010 12:54 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:

"Dan O" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 10:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:10 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Dec 24, 9:50 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:37 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 24, 9:23 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

yet helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?

They haven't, at least regarding serious head injuries. Look
at the
data.

Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary.http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

A lot of talk trying to explain some data. Where's the data?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html

Looks pretty constant to me. (i thought that other article said head
injuries were rising?) (And the "Notes" below are not supported by
the table.) Where's the data that shows increased helmet use? (Don't
smarm me about STFW, either.) (Really, you'd think someone who places
so much importance on seeing the data would get it together in the
first place.)

And I'd think that someone who wanted the data would look for it.

Besides, when I say, "helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?", I
don't mean good in terms of charts and graphs, I mean good in terms of
better outcomes following head impacts (which, based upon your data so
far, would appear to be inevitable). That's what they're for, right?

That data is supposed to be about people treated in hospital ER's,
right? If I smack my head hard with a helmet on, it doesn't feel much
better than when I do it without. I am just as likely to go the ER
(not likely in either case - unless I go "implied consent", or if I
need stitches or something). Whatever happens, happens. I still
think it's a no-brainer that the helmet can be worthwhile protection
against getting hurt.

(My dog in heaven - look at what I am stirring up here! That's it -
no more computer for a while.)

sigh Not much into math and science, are you, Dan?


Dude! "Nova" is my favorite show. (Well, that and "Austin City
Limits" :-) I whipped out the pumper/operator quizzes in real time
with ballpoint on scratch paper while everyone else used calculators.

Don't let it bother you. I graduated cum laudi with my comp sci degree
and he tells me the same thing. You don't need to justify yourself to
trolls.

Mr. Hébert seems to have much more problems with "trolls" that disagree
with his preconceived notions than trolls who do not.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
What I fear is that some idiot zealot
like you is going to talk themselves into a position where they
can influence children who don't know better.[...]

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote
T H I N K
O F T H E
C H I L D R E N !


Ala wrote:
That was cute
Here's some more interesting health info for the children
http://www.elitedeals.com/cpl-aa930-...hannelid=FROOG


In Wisconsin, I don't believe you're allowed to hang
children in chains. Regardless of provocation.

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

Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

I'm surprised you would cite this NY Times article, which states:

# "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent
# accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of
# head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that
# riders should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can
# reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent."

Sounds like religion to me. This must be taken on faith, there being
no evidence cited, however, the article makes no effort to convince
readers that wearing a helmet makes bicycling safer.

I agree that the 88% claim is nonsense. So I don't consider the article a
credible source, and I'm surprised Frank suggested that anyone read it.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Duane Hébert considered Fri, 24 Dec 2010
08:02:09 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/23/2010 6:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:41 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/23/2010 1:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 23, 1:10 pm, Duane H wrote:
On 12/23/2010 12:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Seems you're pretending to know my thoughts, despite my statements
like "And while there are times I'll share a 12 foot lane..." I've
also stated that there are lanes I'll share with a small car, but
not
with a large truck. I've stated that we have some 15 foot lanes
here,
which I always share.

I think you need to take notes.

How do you "control the lane" when the truck driver is at the end
of
a red eye and lit up on Benzedrine?

Duane, if that unlikely "Danger! Danger!" scenario scares you so
much, you need to give up cycling.

So you can't answer the question?

The answer to the question is obvious: You ride in lane center. It
works, despite your paranoia. Remember? 14 million miles ridden in
Quebec between fatalities?

None of which can legally be ridden in the lane center unless
there's an obstruction that forces them there. Quebec Highway
Code section 488. Remember:

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as
traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a
left
turn.

and just for completeness, this is section 492 sighted above:

492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

So basically, La Belle Provence n'a pas te besoin ni tes id es.

Ah well. You'll just have to let that sleep-deprived, drug-addled
trucker skim by your shoulder, should he choose to.

My sympathies, once again. Good luck!


Didn't think that you would actually respond to the fact that it's safer
to ride where your ideology is illegal and that there are far more
cyclists here than where you live. Yet you still think that your
controlling the lane VC religion both improves safety and increases
cycling.

It's very hard to tell which elements of the many differences are
effecting the safety the most, or in some cases even in which
direction.

We know, for example, that increasing numbers of cyclists increases
their safety, and even roughly how much.
That alone will mean that cycling is safer where you are, making the
overall difference from other causes much smaller.
How do roadbuilding standards compare, or surfacing and maintenance?
Are driving standards similar, or traffic levels?
What about lighting requirements, and level of enforcement or
compliance? Maybe some cultural differences that may blunt some "car
is king" attitude in one place more than another.
We don't know if other regulatory and legal differences between the US
(or any particular state of the US) and Canada (or any particular
province or territory in Canada) are having even a positive or
negative effect, so to pick on one and cite it as being likely to be
the difference is at best naive.

I think that it's at least suspect to assume that it's just the facilities.
The city seems to think so based on the link posted and the studies
that they do. I think that facilities are certainly part of it. But I
give a lot of credit to Velo-Quebec for being involved and providing
expertise.

Velo-Quebec has always taken the position that the only really
proven method of increasing safety has been by increasing
the number of cyclists. I tend to agree with them. And in any
case, increasing cyclists seems to me to be a good thing.

They've pushed the facilities and pushed creating them correctly.
They've also pushed expanding the cycling culture with events
and such. I think that this change in the culture has also helped
a lot.

Otherwise, Montreal is not much different than other similar sized US
cities WRT traffic, car culture, rush hours and everything else.
This is, of course, just based on personal experience but it's
not hard to witness these things.

As to the road condition, in general I would say that it's worse
than many other places in the US that I've lived. This is partly due to the
-40 to +35 temperature range and the subsequent freeze/thaw road damage.
One byproduct of this is that they're rebuilding roads often and as they do,
they're
trying to accommodate bicycles.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 10:21 am, Dan O wrote:

Bike accidents are no more productive of head injuries than pedestrian
accidents, and pedestrians have far more of them (over triple the
number) per mile.

I'm not sure how you exist with such fearful notions. Don't take up
sleeping, at some stage you will need to get out of bed, and we all know
how frequently people die from that activity. You'd better not eat
anything either, choking is a real killer you know.

JS.