OH DEER! Good thing the bicyclist was wearing a helmet

On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 00:06:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/3/2016 10:27 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 17:00:36 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 2:40:55 PM UTC-7, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 09-02-2016 22:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
As mentioned: cyclist concussions have risen significantly, NOT
dropped, since helmets became fashionable. And cyclist fatalities
haven't dropped by as great a percentage as pedestrian fatalities. If
the benefits are so great, where is the evidence?

I'm not a fan of helmets, but this is not convincing. Might it be that
pedestrian fatalities are reduced because there are fewer pedestrians?
Or that cyclist concussions increase as there are more cyclists?

No, people are engaging in more risk taking behaviors because of helmets and then hitting their heads. I see it all the time -- people strapping on helmets and jumping off their roofs, thinking they won't get hurt. Cyclists jumping out in front of cars . . . "f**** you man, I've got my helmet . . . you can't hurt me!" I find that when I wear my helmet, I go twice as fast downhill -- 80-90mph, with no hands! "I'm king of the world . . . " It's crazy. Helmets are like Heroin.

-- Jay Beattie.

Only if they are already "on something" or terminal idiots.
Many cyclist deaths are due to serious bodily injuries and helmets
reduce the "minor" concussion injuries significantly - and ask anyone
who has suffered a concussion injury - there is really no such thing
as "minor" when it comes to concussions.

But, at least according to an article in _Bicycling_ magazine in June
2013, bicyclist concussions have _risen_ over 60% since helmets became
popular. Where is the evidence for benefit?

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/defau...-13-Helmet.pdf
Justb means there are more "idiots" riding bikes, and more Yuppies
riding those "brakeless wonders". Also more "wanna-bee" weekend
warrior downhill racers etc - and there is nothing in the numbers to
definitively relate the more concussions to those riders who actually
wear the helmets.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:33:00 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 16:38:21 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-03-2016 12:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Not for me -- I've hit my head bicycling and skiing and working in my
attic. I'm going to get an attic helmet.

For me, it's happened in my garage. It's happened while helping a
friend move; and getting in and out of an unfamiliar vehicle.

My grandfather used to complain that OSHA made him wear a hard-hat when
painting a ceiling.

Probably. And anyone working on a drilling rig floor must wear a
plastic helmet.... with 15,000 lbs. of traveling block hanging over
their heads :-)
Won;t protect against the 15,000 lb block, but MIGHT protect against
a dropped nut or bolt or wrench.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:19:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:33:00 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 16:38:21 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-03-2016 12:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Not for me -- I've hit my head bicycling and skiing and working in my
attic. I'm going to get an attic helmet.

For me, it's happened in my garage. It's happened while helping a
friend move; and getting in and out of an unfamiliar vehicle.

My grandfather used to complain that OSHA made him wear a hard-hat when
painting a ceiling.

Probably. And anyone working on a drilling rig floor must wear a
plastic helmet.... with 15,000 lbs. of traveling block hanging over
their heads :-)
Won;t protect against the 15,000 lb block, but MIGHT protect against
a dropped nut or bolt or wrench.

Who is going to drop the nut/bolt/wrench? The only person up above the
floor is the Derrickman and he is only up there when "making a trip",
i.e. pulling drilling pipe out of, or back into, the hole.

I'm not opposed to "safety" but I do believe that some/much of the
safety policies are based on false premises. Example: when I was in
the Air Force the wearing of glove while using a pedestal grinder was
strictly forbidden as, it was thought, that if a glove was caught by a
grind wheel that the hand might be pulled into the wheel - I might
mention that a 12 - 14 inch grinding wheel will take a thumb off in a
blink of an eye. Today, I read recommendations that gloves should be
work to "protect the hands".
--
cheers,

John B.

On 9/4/2016 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:19:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:33:00 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 16:38:21 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-03-2016 12:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Not for me -- I've hit my head bicycling and skiing and working in my
attic. I'm going to get an attic helmet.

For me, it's happened in my garage. It's happened while helping a
friend move; and getting in and out of an unfamiliar vehicle.

My grandfather used to complain that OSHA made him wear a hard-hat when
painting a ceiling.

Probably. And anyone working on a drilling rig floor must wear a
plastic helmet.... with 15,000 lbs. of traveling block hanging over
their heads :-)
Won;t protect against the 15,000 lb block, but MIGHT protect against
a dropped nut or bolt or wrench.

Who is going to drop the nut/bolt/wrench? The only person up above the
floor is the Derrickman and he is only up there when "making a trip",
i.e. pulling drilling pipe out of, or back into, the hole.

I'm not opposed to "safety" but I do believe that some/much of the
safety policies are based on false premises. Example: when I was in
the Air Force the wearing of glove while using a pedestal grinder was
strictly forbidden as, it was thought, that if a glove was caught by a
grind wheel that the hand might be pulled into the wheel - I might
mention that a 12 - 14 inch grinding wheel will take a thumb off in a
blink of an eye. Today, I read recommendations that gloves should be
work to "protect the hands".

I think a lot of safety requirements come as a result of tragic
accidents. A plant safety committee meets to examine the accident, and
collectively says "We gotta do something" (to justify the committee's
existence). The choice of "something" probably depends on the details
of the very last accident. So: Lose a hand by snagging the glove?
Committee forbids gloves. Lose a thumb because there's no glove?
Committee mandates gloves.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/4/2016 9:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think a lot of safety requirements come as a result of tragic
accidents. A plant safety committee meets to examine the accident, and
collectively says "We gotta do something" (to justify the committee's
existence). The choice of "something" probably depends on the details
of the very last accident. So: Lose a hand by snagging the glove?
Committee forbids gloves. Lose a thumb because there's no glove?
Committee mandates gloves.

Following up on my own post: I'm reminded of a bike-related Campus
Safety Committee meeting at my university.

Some engineering students (not mine) were building a sort of dune buggy
for a competition. On a Saturday, they were test riding it around
campus. They hit a girl and broke her leg. Of course, she sued the
university. (Hey, this is America!)

So the Campus Safety Committee met to decide what to do. Their solution
to this first-time-ever problem? Ban bicycles from campus! (Please
note, the dune buggy that hit the girl was definitely not a bicycle!)

We cyclists on the faculty and staff rebelled in a very professional
manner. We met on our own, we asked to meet with the Safety Committee,
we contacted other universities for information on their policies, etc.
etc. We presented all our info to the Committee. And the Committee
said "OK, thanks. We're still banning bikes."

Then one of my best faculty & cycling friends said "*%#@! I'm calling
the university president right now!" And he did; and he called me back
about an hour later.

He said "Guess who I've been talking to for an hour? President _____!
Guess whose parents never owned a car when he was growing up? Guess
whose family always took their vacations by bicycle? He says he's going
to instruct the Safety Committee to revise their recommendation so it
fits the needs of campus cyclists."

Which they did. Sometimes the good guys win.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/4/2016 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 00:06:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/3/2016 10:27 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 17:00:36 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 2:40:55 PM UTC-7, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 09-02-2016 22:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
As mentioned: cyclist concussions have risen significantly, NOT
dropped, since helmets became fashionable. And cyclist fatalities
haven't dropped by as great a percentage as pedestrian fatalities. If
the benefits are so great, where is the evidence?

I'm not a fan of helmets, but this is not convincing. Might it be that
pedestrian fatalities are reduced because there are fewer pedestrians?
Or that cyclist concussions increase as there are more cyclists?

No, people are engaging in more risk taking behaviors because of helmets and then hitting their heads. I see it all the time -- people strapping on helmets and jumping off their roofs, thinking they won't get hurt. Cyclists jumping out in front of cars . . . "f**** you man, I've got my helmet . . . you can't hurt me!" I find that when I wear my helmet, I go twice as fast downhill -- 80-90mph, with no hands! "I'm king of the world . . . " It's crazy. Helmets are like Heroin.

-- Jay Beattie.

Only if they are already "on something" or terminal idiots.
Many cyclist deaths are due to serious bodily injuries and helmets
reduce the "minor" concussion injuries significantly - and ask anyone
who has suffered a concussion injury - there is really no such thing
as "minor" when it comes to concussions.

But, at least according to an article in _Bicycling_ magazine in June
2013, bicyclist concussions have _risen_ over 60% since helmets became
popular. Where is the evidence for benefit?

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/defau...-13-Helmet.pdf
Justb means there are more "idiots" riding bikes, and more Yuppies
riding those "brakeless wonders". Also more "wanna-bee" weekend
warrior downhill racers etc - and there is nothing in the numbers to
definitively relate the more concussions to those riders who actually
wear the helmets.

I don't think so.

The quotes on page 60 of that article, linked above. The concussions
increased by 67%. There's certainly not been a 67% increase in idiot
cyclists. As far as riders actually wearing helmets, both that
percentage and count of cyclist is higher than its ever been.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:23:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/4/2016 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:19:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:33:00 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 16:38:21 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-03-2016 12:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Not for me -- I've hit my head bicycling and skiing and working in my
attic. I'm going to get an attic helmet.

For me, it's happened in my garage. It's happened while helping a
friend move; and getting in and out of an unfamiliar vehicle.

My grandfather used to complain that OSHA made him wear a hard-hat when
painting a ceiling.

Probably. And anyone working on a drilling rig floor must wear a
plastic helmet.... with 15,000 lbs. of traveling block hanging over
their heads :-)
Won;t protect against the 15,000 lb block, but MIGHT protect against
a dropped nut or bolt or wrench.

Who is going to drop the nut/bolt/wrench? The only person up above the
floor is the Derrickman and he is only up there when "making a trip",
i.e. pulling drilling pipe out of, or back into, the hole.

I'm not opposed to "safety" but I do believe that some/much of the
safety policies are based on false premises. Example: when I was in
the Air Force the wearing of glove while using a pedestal grinder was
strictly forbidden as, it was thought, that if a glove was caught by a
grind wheel that the hand might be pulled into the wheel - I might
mention that a 12 - 14 inch grinding wheel will take a thumb off in a
blink of an eye. Today, I read recommendations that gloves should be
work to "protect the hands".

I think a lot of safety requirements come as a result of tragic
accidents. A plant safety committee meets to examine the accident, and
collectively says "We gotta do something" (to justify the committee's
existence). The choice of "something" probably depends on the details
of the very last accident. So: Lose a hand by snagging the glove?
Committee forbids gloves. Lose a thumb because there's no glove?
Committee mandates gloves.


I have always felt that, at least some, of the safety regulations come
about because the safety office needs to be seen to be doing
something. In fact, during one safety inspect (the Air Force has them
frequently) the inspector not having found anything said "I've got to
find something" so I showed him a loose belt guard on a drill press
and he wrote that up with the note "discrepancy corrected at time of
inspection".

--
cheers,

John B.