Ads |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:49 PM |
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset | retrofan | Marketplace | 0 | July 6th 07 11:14 PM |