Extended stems

On Jul 12, 10:14*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:00:30 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman

°_° wrote:
No, no, no.

Try the whole population studies of cyclists in places like Australia
and New Zealand as examples.

Yes, yes, yes.

Let me try it this way: I will be the researcher and you're the
population; n=1. *Thus, I'm doing a "whole population study." * Based
upon my observations, the entire population lacks a clue as to what a
"whole population study" is.

The problem is "whole population" means one thing in the language of a
statistician, and (usually) another thing in the context of studying
what happens to the citizens of a country.

Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control
studies with self-selected subjects, helmets became mandatory for the
whole population of Australia, then New Zealand. And despite the
wonderful predictions, there was no detectable benefit. Again,
helmets on all cyclists - or as close to "all" as strong promotion and
strict enforcement could achieve - brought no reduction in serious
head injuries per remaining cyclist.

Jones, have you read Scuffham, P.A. et.al., "Trends in Cycling
Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 ? Check it out.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Brian Huntley
wrote:

On Jul 12, 3:06*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:36:55 -0400, Still Just Me *-



wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

!Jones wrote:

OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
visit for sure. *(Never again will I mount any bike without my
helmet!!!) *It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.

I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.

This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, And

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...lmet-large.jpg

Chalo

Here's a photo of Andre, in helmet, ready to ride his girl's bike:
http://thefedorachronicles.com/vinta...an-pith-helmet...

Dear SJM,

Frank Lenz, round-the-world attempt, India, 1895, Victor
front-half-heart suspension pneumatic:
*http://i10.tinypic.com/5ywikhu.jpg

Other pith-helmet photos and illustrations of Lenz in the article,
before he was murdered in Armenia:

http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...me_26/outXXVI0...

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Joff Summerfield recently wore a pith helmet on his around-the-world
ride (journal and photos he http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/joff1)
completed last November.

Since he was on a penny-farthing, the helmet wasn't all that strange
looking by comparison.

Dear Brian,

Please, make no odious comparisons, lest we end up discussing "strange
looking" headgear and dwarf safety riders like these:
http://i39.tinypic.com/1z38lzd.jpg

The two stylish riders are Thomas Gaskell Allen and William Lewis
Sachtleben, authors of "Across Asia on a Bicycle"--they left St.
Louis, Missouri, in June, 1890, the day after they graduated from
Washington University, and rode 15,000 miles in three years:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ktAoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP19

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:45:20 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech RonSonic
wrote:

I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your
head on.

Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person.
*I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make
your own decisions.

Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there
has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved.
Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in
Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling
reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually
went up.
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim
any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the
figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than
14mph when they pass me.
I believe even some states in the US have helmet compulsion now. It's
fast becoming a no-choice issue, when there's still no compelling
evidence that they do any good.

Peter Grange writes:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:45:20 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech RonSonic
wrote:

I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your
head on.

Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person.
*I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make
your own decisions.

Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there
has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved.
Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in
Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling
reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually
went up.
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim
any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the
figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than
14mph when they pass me.

Way to skew the facts. Most collisions dont happen at top speeds. They
happen in stop start traffic. And not all are "head on", they are
"brushes" which cause the cyclist to topple.


I believe even some states in the US have helmet compulsion now. It's
fast becoming a no-choice issue, when there's still no compelling
evidence that they do any good.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:07:41 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control
studies with self-selected subjects, ...

Which was what I pointed out right up front. I believe I said, "The
study has serious design issues," when I mentioned it. You'll have to
define the term "case-control" because it's not in my vocabulary; one
sees that type of study (Thompson, et. al.) called "correlational" or
"comparative" in the US literature; however, I have seen at least one
text (Gay, et. al., 1998) call it a "causal-comparaitve" design...
which led students into deep confusion because the *last* term one may
use in such a design is "cause".

Jones

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:18:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Still Just Me
- wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:42:55 -0500, !Jones wrote:


You will never see such a study. For similar reasons, you'll never
see a study on smoking that shows it causes lung illness; you'll never
see a study that shows firing bullets into your brain causes death,
either.


The "helmets don't help" crowd have difficulty understanding the
issues with these (helmet-injury) statistics.

There are other factors besides helmets at work here, obviously. I
recall about 1995 or so, Austin, TX passed an ordinance requiring
bicyclists to wear helmets... it was not well received; people would
wear helmets with no straps, etc. Then the state repealed its
motorcycle helmet law, leaving Austin in the absurd position of
requiring a helmet of a mo-ped rider if he or she were pedalling the
machine; however, under engine power, no helmet was required.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
using flawed data made helmets mandatory...

Well, they're a democracy; the good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand can jolly well vote their legislators out of office if they
don't like what they do. If you don't live there, it's not your
problem.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion.

Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.

I saw a personal injury insurance policy that explicitly didn't apply
to any injury suffered if one sustained it while participating in a
whole list of sports without a helmet. Actually, you could have your
foot amputated and, if you weren't wearing a helmet, the policy
technically would be void.

Jones

On Jul 13, 5:07*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange

wrote:
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion.

Do you happen to have a citation on that? *Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. *My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. *I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.

In Oregon, we have a MHL for children under 16, however the same
statute provides that the failure to wear a helmet may not be offered
as evidence of comparative fault in a personal injury action -- filed
by any plaintiff, regardless of age.-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:07:40 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion.

Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the
consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence
that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle
accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm
not wearing one is just plain nonsense.

I saw a personal injury insurance policy that explicitly didn't apply
to any injury suffered if one sustained it while participating in a
whole list of sports without a helmet. Actually, you could have your
foot amputated and, if you weren't wearing a helmet, the policy
technically would be void.

Jones