|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a BikeCommuter?
Dan Overman wrote:
[...] I'm done. If anyone replies they can have the last word. "0.ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo unless you are bound by ego riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the edo” - gene daniels -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
Ads |
#572
|
|||
|
|||
Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a BikeCommuter?
On Mar 11, 9:40*pm, Dan O wrote, eventually:
I'm done. If anyone replies they can have the last word Well, that certainly limits the value of responding to you. But others may be interested, so I'll respond anyway. On Mar 10, 10:55 am, wrote: On Mar 8, 3:54 pm, Dan O wrote: Absolutely wrong. *Appropriate protection for an activity should be judged based on the probability of a harmful event and the cost of its consequences (risk) vs. the cost and effectiveness of protection. The risk(s) of any other activity is utterly irrelevant to this assessment. [fk:] If someone came up to you and said "Dan, we've got good data; the risk of serious head injury in that activity is 1.68 serious HI per million hours activity." *How would you evaluate that raw information?... Frank, I don't assess my own risk either way based on anyone else's experience, data, or analysis. Then what method is best? Gut feeling? Responding to the last bit of propaganda you saw? Why wouldn't it be better to consider not only the "conventional wisdom," but the actual data, if available? The only rational way to actually judge is by comparison with other activities. That may be fine if your sole objective is a provably consistent "Safety Stance" across every activity that you ever engage in. *(I would argue this is impossible, anyway.) *My objective is merely to employ some good judgment where it counts and avoid potentially catastrophic consequences where the cost of doing so is acceptable. ... You're saying I should base my perception of my own risk in a given activity based on someone else's analysis of someone else's collection of aggregate statistics of someone else doing something else. *You're kidding, right? I'm saying your judgment should be informed by the data that's available. Otherwise, how do you even pretend it's "good judgment"? Personal wild guesses of danger levels are notoriously faulty. There are dozens of examples of this - from teenage kids drinking and driving fast on mountain roads, to "my cholesterol is over 300, but it won't hurt me," to "That AIDS stuff is made up just to keep us from having fun." Or, on the other end of the scale, there's the hype about stranger abduction of children, the worry about ever refilling a water bottle, or the idea that nobody should ever ride a bike without a helmet! ... I'm responding to my own consideration of the total circumstances as they pertain to me individually, and my resulting perception of risk. *Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, I *do* ride without a helmet, but every time I do, I believe that I am accepting some additional risk of potentially dire consequences. *I wear a helmet because I believe the potential protection outweighs the cost. *I believe it offers some good protection (against potentially devastating consequences), and it doesn't unduly impinge on my riding experience (heck, my head is just sitting up there along for the ride and doing nothing but looking ahead for the most part, anyway). I understand that there's no guarantee your individual risk at any moment will precisely match any study's finding. I also understand that you _believe_ you're properly judging your own risk level, and that you're accepting only that there's "some" level of protection. But do you really disagree that the helmet promoters have succeeded in exaggerating the risk of cycling? ISTM that the typical American would never guess that there are roughly fifteen MILLION miles ridden between each bike fatality. ISTM that the typical American believes incurable or fatal bike head injuries are extremely common, and that simply wearing a helmet makes them almost vanish. And ISTM the odds are that you've been influenced by that propaganda, whether you realize it or not. And I use the word "propaganda" because there is so much data to the contrary, data that the public never hears - because the data argues against the need for a profitable commercial product! The situation we have is a lot like someone making a fortune selling crucifixes to ward off vampires. By golly, once everyone started carrying crucifixes, you got no vampire attacks! And there are plenty of people who are convinced that they saw weird looking folks - vampires! - who _would_ have attacked, but for the crucifix they carried! Except that the great danger was never there. The fact that it still isn't there has nothing to do with the supposed protective measure. All that the intense promotion has accomplished is to line the pockets of the sales force. Believe me I'd love to live in a world like Amsterdam where folks can cruise around on bikes like it was a perfectly natural and socially acceptable thing to do ;-) I believe you choose your own world, to a very large degree. Or perhaps I should say you make your own world. If you want cycling to be natural and socially acceptable, just be a socially acceptable person and ride your bicycle - naturally! Really, if you ride properly, you may not be quite as safe as in Amsterdam - but the difference is negligible. Infinitesmal times 10 is still infinitesmal. Finally, let me make this clear: I'm really not trying to talk you out of wearing whatever hat you choose. As usual, I'm merely trying to counter a lot of negative hype. One thing I've noticed over the years: At least in these discussion groups, we've largely moved away from "You should ALWAYS wear a helmet, because riding a bike is proven to be so dangerous, and helmets work so beautifully!!!" Now we get a lot more of "I'll always wear a helmet because, well, um, I think there's still _some_ chance I'll crash, and even if it's just a scratch protector, I don't want any scratches." I suspect people are still swallowing the propaganda, but just not admitting to it. But again, that's their choice. As long as they don't try to spread falsehoods and disparage cycling, then helmets, purple shorts, cartoon jerseys, matching socks, etc. are all just style and fashion. - Frank Krygowski |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a BikeCommuter?
On Mar 12, 1:15*am, wrote:
Krygo blather snipped to save everyone's time - Franky's talking helmeats - again! - I suspect people are still swallowing the [helmet] propaganda, but just not admitting to it. *But again, that's their choice. So nice of you to allow people a choice, Franky. *As long as they don't try to spread falsehoods and disparage cycling, then helmets, purple shorts, cartoon jerseys, matching socks, etc. are all just style and fashion. And *anyone* who crosses that line will run afoul of Frank Krygowski, The Caped Gasbag, er, Crusader!!! http://preview.tinyurl.com/28yqwz or, for the fearless: http://tinyurl.com/28yqwz |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just how worthless is ARBR? | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 1 | February 16th 08 01:31 AM |
Q. How worthless are 29ers and SSs? | â–€Slack | Mountain Biking | 6 | October 3rd 07 06:36 PM |
Hard facts about helmets and safety? | [email protected] | General | 126 | October 4th 06 11:25 PM |
Ultimate safety mod for helmets? | Werehatrack | General | 7 | May 10th 06 04:38 AM |
New plastic safety device. | Martin Dann | UK | 6 | October 14th 05 07:17 PM |