Another Helmet Thread

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:19:23 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 6/27/2013 4:58 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

There are people who think I'm crazy for riding my bike to work -- or at least think it's dangerous.



But where are the actual cyclists that claim that bicycling is very
dangerous?

The ones demanding bike lanes because riding on ordinary streets is too dangerous.

And lately the ones demanding cycletracks because riding in bike lanes is too dangerous.

The ones telling other cyclists that it's stupid to ride without a helmet.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need garish-colored clothes to be safe on a bike.

The ones telling other cyclists that if they ride in the middle of a narrow lane, they'll get flattened, and that they should leave the road instead.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need high-powered daytime strobe lights.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need flags sticking out to the side of their bikes.

Need I go on?

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, June 28, 2013 12:39:24 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
hueristic more likely. Surly no one stands on airbags are ineffective.



In the US, cost of enforcement is balanced ( useing the word inappropriately) Aussies get from their position.



The discussees seam to head into this conclusion nbut avoid getting there as the end does not justify the means.s wrote prior, I watched on a curb hitting his occipital right on the crete full bore off a mass tangle where he flipped of the bike.



In the instant following the plastic crunch, he appeared amused by the incident.



WHOA !



The scene somewhat surreal.



As I walked into the turn under classic Americana trees, 1910 upper midclass houses, ther assembled welcomed me with a huge cheer for the famous man in the tree road racing spectator has come to their corner for the big accident.



J JUNGLE JIM !

You see I watched the racer die on that curb 10 feet away but he did not. I've had 3 such then watched several scream by into oblivion but not.

That eliminates a lotta verbiage.

and next week Ima gonna smash the keyboad on a curb.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:19:23 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 6/27/2013 4:58 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

There are people who think I'm crazy for riding my bike to work -- or at least think it's dangerous.



But where are the actual cyclists that claim that bicycling is very
dangerous?

The ones demanding bike lanes because riding on ordinary streets is too dangerous.

And lately the ones demanding cycletracks because riding in bike lanes is too dangerous.

The ones telling other cyclists that it's stupid to ride without a helmet.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need garish-colored clothes to be safe on a bike.

The ones telling other cyclists that if they ride in the middle of a narrow lane, they'll get flattened, and that they should leave the road instead.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need high-powered daytime strobe lights.

The ones telling other cyclists that they need flags sticking out to the side of their bikes.


I agree with each and every one of the above (but he asked "where",
so that's why I left it at "on the sidewalk".)

Need I go on?

On 28/06/13 14:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:59:29 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 28/06/13 01:27, Frank Krygowski wrote:



But bike helmets have _never_ been promoted or mandated based on

claims of protection from mere minor injuries! (Well, except by

Usenet posters who want to justify their own helmet use, after

conceding that protection from death or serious TBI is extremely

unlikely.) So if your data is supposed to jibe with helmet

promotion, you should be producing evidence that bicycling is much

riskier than walking regarding death and serious TBI, not just minor

injuries.



Bicycle helmets were never designed to prevent concussion.

I think that claim would be rejected by almost everyone who either wears one or promotes their use.


The designed purpose is to prevent - or at least reduce the likelihood -

of your skull fracturing.

That's not what the writers of the test standard have claimed. Recall that the heart of the test standard is that the disembodied headform must decelerate at less than "300 gees" (i.e. 300 times the acceleration of gravity). That's because way back when the standard was created (and TBI was less clearly understood) it was thought that 300 gees was the threshold acceleration for brain injury.

"He required that a helmet protect the skull by decreasing the impact
force to less than 300g, a number well below the point at which
researchers believed critical head injury—then defined mainly as skull
fracture—occurred."

I posted this a while back. Others found it interesting, and I think a

good explanation of what is being talked about.



http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/

It's pretty good. So is the printed version, which I've had ever since it first came out.


--
JS

On 28/06/13 15:34, James wrote:
On 28/06/13 14:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:59:29 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 28/06/13 01:27, Frank Krygowski wrote:



But bike helmets have _never_ been promoted or mandated based on

claims of protection from mere minor injuries! (Well, except by

Usenet posters who want to justify their own helmet use, after

conceding that protection from death or serious TBI is extremely

unlikely.) So if your data is supposed to jibe with helmet

promotion, you should be producing evidence that bicycling is much

riskier than walking regarding death and serious TBI, not just minor

injuries.



Bicycle helmets were never designed to prevent concussion.

I think that claim would be rejected by almost everyone who either wears one or promotes their use.


The designed purpose is to prevent - or at least reduce the likelihood -

of your skull fracturing.

That's not what the writers of the test standard have claimed. Recall that the heart of the test standard is that the disembodied headform must decelerate at less than "300 gees" (i.e. 300 times the acceleration of gravity). That's because way back when the standard was created (and TBI was less clearly understood) it was thought that 300 gees was the threshold acceleration for brain injury.

"He required that a helmet protect the skull by decreasing the impact
force to less than 300g, a number well below the point at which
researchers believed critical head injury—then defined mainly as skull
fracture—occurred."

Additional:

"There's no such thing as a concussion-proof helmet," Elliot Kaye, the
CPSC's deputy chief of staff, told senator Jay Rockefeller during a
hearing on concussions last year. Again, the word choice. Kaye said
concussion-proof, not concussion-reducing. Safer doesn't mean safe. It's
a fine line, but plenty of lawyers will go after any helmet maker whose
marketers so much as mention the word concussion in describing what
their product is engineered to do.

And some in the industry contend that helmets should not, or cannot,
prevent concussions. Snell Foundation executive director Ed Becker, a
respected member of the ASTM helmet subcommittee, told me that Snell
helmet standards have always focused on catastrophic impacts. "We
haven't really worried about concussion," he said. "We're mostly worried
about the single impact that doesn't just concuss but leaves a rider
with long-term disability, or kills him outright."


I posted this a while back. Others found it interesting, and I think a

good explanation of what is being talked about.



http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/

It's pretty good. So is the printed version, which I've had ever since it first came out.



--
JS

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:19:56 -0700, Dan wrote:

That's got to be one of the most blatantly evasive non-answers to
one of the most straightforward questions in this whole latest
debacle.

Who are these mythical people that are claiming that bicycling is
very dangerous? Where do they hang out? Where do they live? How come
none of us has ever seen one?

There are people who think I'm crazy for riding my bike to work -- or
at least think it's dangerous.

But where are the actual cyclists that claim that bicycling is very
dangerous?

On the sidewalk.

Heh!
--
davethedave

On 6/27/2013 6:23 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:59:29 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 28/06/13 01:27, Frank Krygowski wrote:



But bike helmets have _never_ been promoted or mandated based on
claims of protection from mere minor injuries! (Well, except by
Usenet posters who want to justify their own helmet use, after
conceding that protection from death or serious TBI is extremely
unlikely.) So if your data is supposed to jibe with helmet
promotion, you should be producing evidence that bicycling is much
riskier than walking regarding death and serious TBI, not just minor
injuries.
I think helmets can and do significantly reduce death and serious TBI.
And even if this were "extremely unlikely", the cost of... um, death -
and TBI - are... um, extreme.

Dollars to donuts the response to this has the word concussion in it.




Bicycle helmets were never designed to prevent concussion.



ISTM a helmet would protect the head (excluding the face) from bumps,

bruises and scrapes.



The designed purpose is to prevent - or at least reduce the likelihood -

of your skull fracturing.



I posted this a while back. Others found it interesting, and I think a

good explanation of what is being talked about.



http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/

Is that the MIPS and AIM thing? Outstanding!

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure we won't see Frank getting on board
for better helmets.

On 6/27/2013 10:19 PM, Dan wrote:
SMS writes:

On 6/27/2013 4:58 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/27/2013 3:00 PM, Dan O wrote:



That's got to be one of the most blatantly evasive non-answers to one of the most straightforward questions in this whole latest debacle.


Who are these mythical people that are claiming that bicycling is very

dangerous? Where do they hang out? Where do they live? How come none of

us has ever seen one?

There are people who think I'm crazy for riding my bike to work -- or at least think it's dangerous.
But where are the actual cyclists that claim that bicycling is very
dangerous?
On the sidewalk.

But he's asking where are the cyclists that claim bicycling is very
dangerous. We know some pedestrians think that.
Or do you mean the cyclists riding on the sidewalk?

On 6/27/2013 7:20 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/27/2013 3:00 PM, Dan O wrote:

That's got to be one of the most blatantly evasive non-answers to one
of the most straightforward questions in this whole latest debacle.

Who are these mythical people that are claiming that bicycling is very
dangerous? Where do they hang out? Where do they live? How come none
of us has ever seen one?


Their name is Fred.

On 6/27/2013 8:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:43:04 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Duane writes:

... seeing the dead cyclists on the 5 o'clock news.


Of course that will never happen. News works on the "man bites dog"

principle -- the less common an incident, the more it is noised about.

Where I live a cyclist death anywhere in the state seems to get about as

much local press as a pedestrian death in the town. Either get

considerably more coverage than motor vehicle occupant deaths, which are

hardly mentioned at all unless someone famous or particularly gruesome

circumstances are involved.
It's exactly the same here, and probably almost everywhere. Granted,
it's not real easy to test, since like most of the U.S., our
multi-county metro area gets only one cyclist death in about five
years. But deaths in cars are page 5 news, if they make it into the
paper at all.
I know I've posted this link before, but I still find it interesting.
Among other things, it shows that in the period [2001 2009] there were
more pedestrians deaths on my street (2) than cyclist deaths (1) in my town.

http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa

Check out your own localities (if you live in the US).

How many people on your street walk? How many in your town ride a bike?
Taken as a percentage of use, is cycling still safer than walking in
your town based on these numbers?

And BTW, the auto deaths never mention the medical cause of death, even though national data makes it clear that TBI is an extremely common cause of motorist deaths. That's true even with seat belts and air bags.

http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08...motorists.html

- Frank Krygowski