Sad helmet incident

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:46:19 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:45:42 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


Drivel: Not one of the replies to my original topic on bicycle radar
signatures addressed the original topic. At a minimum, I expected
someone to ask about the visibility of a carbon fiber bicycle on 77GHz
radar. My comment about radar reflectors was not a joke. To me, it's
all very disappointing.

Do yu have a design?

Maybe. Marine radar reflectors have been around for a long time:
https://www.google.com/search?q=marine+radar+reflector&tbm=isch
However, these operate on a frequency of about 10 GHz. The automobile
radar works at 77 GHz. Therefore, the reflector can be 1/7th the size
of the marine reflector:
https://www.instructables.com/id/Really-Lightweight-Radar-Reflector-built-with-CDs/
but bigger produces a stronger echo. I'm not sure how large it would
need to be to simulate an automobile or a brick wall. Probably fairly
large because the 77 GHz automotive radar has much better resolution
than the typical marine radio. A golf ball size reflector would work
on a bicycle, but it might look like a golf ball, not a brick wall.

If you skim the article I posted, you'll find images of what the
automobile radar actually sees. A side view of an aluminum or steel
bicycle looks like a horizontal smear. A front or rear view is
unknown, but my guess would be a series of hot spots from the highly
reflective metal components, and a big blank area for materials that
are radar absorbent (CF frame, rack, rider). Adding a reflector to
this will give a stronger return signal, but might not make it any
easier to identify.

Since my regular ride incudes front and back racks,
I could easily mount, say a 6' cube to count as two cars.

It probably could be smaller than 6 inches diameter. The ideal size
for a retro reflector is a diameter of 1 wavelength. At 77 GHz,
that's about 3.9 mm or approximately the size of a golf ball. Larger
is better, but a golf ball would work. I'm not sure what that will
look like on Doppler radar and some experimentation might be needed.

Knowning a bit more about the algorithm, we might be able to even fool it
into making it thing I'm a big Mack* truck.

Nope. You can't really do much image changing with a passive
reflector. However, an active transponder, which has a proper
receiver, DSP (digital signal processor), computah, and transmitter,
should work quite nicely.

*I think it was the Mack that had a reputation for verring out of the
lane a while ago.

Dunno.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 16:46:39 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 12:31:22 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In my never humble opinion, it would not be difficult to redesign the
common "quick release buckle" so that it would release under tension
or possibly when an added release cord and D-ring is pulled.

I'd be hesitant about a self-releasing helmet buckle. One can easily
imagine a whole variety of opportunities for Murphy to prove his Law.

Agreed. I thought about it a little and realized that an unplanned
and unannounced release of the chin strap would be a really bad idea.
I indicated this in one of my comments elsewhere in this thread. My
appologies, but sometimes, I don't get it right on the first try.

Try it first on those helmets Franki-boy is trying to make pedestrians wear

Most of the children that died because they were strangled by their
helmet chin strap were not riding their bicycles. Technically, they
were pedestrians.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Bicyclist concussions have gone up, way up, over the last decade just as
helmet use continued to rise.

You've made that claim before. But we know that there have been huge changes
in the way concussions are diagnosed and reported, which have led to
concussions "going way up" in many sports, not just cycling. Without a more
careful analysis, we can't draw any credible conclusions about helmet
effectiveness from the increase in reported bicycle concussions.

That's the most optimistic way of interpreting the results, if you're a helmet
promoter. But do you want the job of reporting back to a legislator who had to
be talked into a MHL? "Yes, I know we promised helmets would reduce TBI. Yes, I
know bicyclist TBI instead ROSE over 60%. But trust me, they're working! We're
just _noticing_ TBI we never noticed before! Honest!"


I think it's very clear that we're noticing TBI that were previously unreported.
But the question is whether concussion rates would be even higher (and by how
much) without helmets. For what it's worth, I think that helmets have a small
effect in reducing TBI, certainly way less than 85%. That Thompson study was
nonsense. But so is claiming that an increase in reported concussions proves
that helmets are ineffective.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:25:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/

I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

Along the same lines penalizing those who sell dope is, I believe, the
wrong approach. Imagine what the results of a law stating that
possession of a drug is punished by a mandatory $5,000 fine and/or
imprisonment for not less then six months.
--
cheers,

John B.

\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:56:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 5:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:39:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

Ah but the gloves are a lovely idea. The ones with the towel like
patches on the back especially as they allow one to wipe one's nose
without reaching for a handkerchief.

As an aside, of course one might wipe one's nose with a bare hand but
this leads to sticky hands and the nickname "Snotty".

Aren't sticky hands a safety benefit?? Why, if your hands slip on the
bars, you could die!

It's messy and the bars will begin to stink after a while and who
wants to be called "Snotty"?

As Chris Froome discovered blowing your nose is dangerous when riding
a bicycle... I wonder, could our resident electrical genius develop an
electronic nose blowing device?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 6:55:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine.

Thank you for permission to not wear a helmet! ;-) But I already had
that permission. (Well, except on a trip to Canada a few years ago.)

But that's not my big issue. Here's my big issue: "You're nuts if you
don't wear fluorescent clothing! And use glaring Daytime Running Lights!
And don't campaign for 'Protected' Bike Lanes! And don't use disc
brakes! And don't use clipless pedals! And wear gloves to protect your
hands if you fall! Oh, and where's your helmet?? You're crazy if you
don't do whatever you can to INCREASE YOUR SAFETY on a bike!"

My issue is the continual portrayal of ALL bicycling as a tremendously
risky activity - something being done not only by "safety" nuts, but by
avid bicyclists themselves. I think it's bad for bicyclists, it's bad
for bicycling as an activity, and it's bad for society as a whole. And
it offends me intellectually, because it's proven so obviously false by
so much data.

And it's particularly weird that avid bicyclists keep up the hand
wringing. I don't see the same behavior from fans of other similar
activities. Runners and joggers don't tell each other about helmets, and
don't put up with countless fan magazine articles about stuff they MUST
wear for safety. Pedestrians get occasional snarks for daring to walk
wearing dark clothing (which amazes me) but don't nag each other about
needing protection. Swimmers don't harp on the risk of drowning, and
they don't swim with mandatory water wings. Cross country skiers don't
warn other skiers with tales of freezing to death.

Why are so many bicyclists so willing to disparage bicycling?


Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

There's no giant conspiracy because you already have a helmet law in
Oregon. You're just not part of the group subject to it. But there's
constant social pressure to maintain the meme that "Of _course_ you must
wear a helmet!" And if you ride into Washington State, you may find
yourself in violation of a MHL.

Yes, its true, I'm over the age of 16. That law also has an upside -- ORS 814.489. Evidence of failure to wear a helmet is inadmissible in a personal injury action brought by a person of any age. In many -- if not most states -- failure to wear a helmet is admissible to prove comparative fault, like failing to wear a seat belt. Seethe about that for a while.

I wear my helmet when I ride in Washington. https://live.staticflickr.com/3335/3...22073c68_b.jpg Although I don't think my helmet would do much good getting blown off Cape Horn. It looks a lot like Ohio: https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=dj_r2knnAj8


Well, perhaps you wouldn't, because you wouldn't dare ride without a
helmet.

Yes, because I'm just some frady cat, and you're a bare-head hero! I started wearing a helmet at the request of my then girlfriend after getting hit by a car for the second or third time -- in San Jose. Nasty motorists. All were JRA.

Then I stopped wearing a helmet, and then I started wearing a helmet full time with the USCF rule change and pestering from my now wife. It hasn't caused me any emotional distress, unlike some. It's reduced or prevented injuries three or more times -- all crashes in nasty weather.

But there are plenty of cyclists who could get prosecuted for
perfectly reasonable behavior.

Prosecuted? You men a ticket (that doesn't go against your license and can't be used for rating your insurnce)? Think of it as a tax. You can also get a ticket for not getting an annual back-flow test on your lawn sprinkler valve -- or for excessive window tinting on your car. Maybe you should go to Washington and save all the enslaved heads in Vancouver, which, by the way, is a nightmare for riding. I skip most of it by going over the I-205 bridge: https://tinyurl.com/wwd36ea

This is one of my nearby climbs with a typical Portland driver. You would wear a helmet, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fzwm4m3ZFI BTW, the sad part is that its a clear cut. It used to be forest all the way up (not shown on the video).

-- Jay Beattie.

with Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:38:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

There's plenty of data showing that the massive uptake in bike helmets
hasn't caused a detectable reduction in fatalities. That means that
that thousands of people who were promoting helmets as absolutely
necessary life savers were wrong.
*SKIP*
So, what is an RBT reading geek to do? If helmets are not going to
disappear, and many people seem to want helmets, then at least make
them better, more functional, more usable, cheaper, and in this case,
less dangerous to small children. Minor tweaks to the design of a
chin strap are not going to affect global use and sales of helmets,
but it might save the lives of a few kids.

No way. Changes as such would draw on profits.

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head..
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views.. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers