A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shimano Headset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old May 19th 17, 01:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Shimano Headset

On 19/05/2017 2:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.

You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"

I ask as I did a quick search and could find no references to any data
whatsoever.



Out of the many hits (About 733,000 results (0.58 seconds) , this was
the first one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_death

Can you possibly be against such a simple safety measure?



Ads
  #272  
Old May 19th 17, 02:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,498
Default Shimano Headset

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:45:37 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.

You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"

I ask as I did a quick search and could find no references to any data
whatsoever.


I'd never heard of even one case. But I did hear that after real refrigerators came out and we had all those old models they were sitting in everyone's garage and there was definitely the possibility of something like that happening. And I'm sure that playing hide and seek that some kid probably tried hiding in one. And that would be all it would take for the government to pass fun control laws.
  #273  
Old May 19th 17, 02:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,498
Default Shimano Headset

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5:05:42 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 19/05/2017 2:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.
You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"

I ask as I did a quick search and could find no references to any data
whatsoever.



Out of the many hits (About 733,000 results (0.58 seconds) , this was
the first one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_death

Can you possibly be against such a simple safety measure?


If you look up the references you find that more children are killed suffocating under pillows and blankets.

From this sort of thing you can see the birth of helmet laws. If you can suffocate under a pillow everyone should wear a helmet because it will save your life.
  #274  
Old May 19th 17, 03:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default Shimano Headset

writes:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.


Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.


You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


You got a problem with reading comprehension? I said the idea was sold,
which it was, not that it was a bad idea. The cost was close to zero,
a counterpoint to Frank's "they're just in it for the money" claim.

--


  #275  
Old May 19th 17, 03:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default Shimano Headset

John B. writes:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some
of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.

You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"


I don't know. There were at least a few fatalities. The laws
definitely followed the publicity campaign, they did not lead.

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.

--
  #277  
Old May 19th 17, 03:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Shimano Headset

On 19/05/2017 10:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some
of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.
You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.


Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"


I don't know. There were at least a few fatalities. The laws
definitely followed the publicity campaign, they did not lead.

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.


I remember a few cases in New Orleans as well. I don't see the down
side of passing that law. The up side is that the design has changed to
prevent this.

I guess this is somehow related to one of the arguments against bike
helmets. If so, the reasoning seems specious.

  #278  
Old May 19th 17, 05:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,840
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/19/2017 7:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.


But how many lives were lost because people refused to buy a
refrigerator due to this law and ate food that was unsafe due to lack of
refrigeration?


  #279  
Old May 19th 17, 05:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,498
Default Shimano Headset

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:26:01 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/19/2017 7:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.


But how many lives were lost because people refused to buy a
refrigerator due to this law and ate food that was unsafe due to lack of
refrigeration?


I really don't get how these people don't know that this is all a trade-off and why they are totally unwilling to look at it that way.

How could you look at a helmet use from 0 to 30% without a change in the numbers of head injuries and think that a helmet was accomplishing anything? I wear my helmet to protect my head in very minor accidents but I am continually hearing people say to wear a helmet and save a life.'

Whacked out.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) Joerg[_2_] Techniques 34 June 8th 16 03:04 PM
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset retrofan Marketplace 0 August 14th 08 04:41 AM
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset LawBoy01 Marketplace 2 August 14th 08 12:02 AM
Installing shimano 105 headset Neil Smith UK 1 November 7th 07 05:49 PM
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset retrofan Marketplace 0 July 6th 07 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.