|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 2/19/2019 6:22 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2019 10:05 AM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM, wrote: Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road? You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data. Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much. Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the right direction. Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped out by a few miles per hour more speed? That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance of you actually giving data.) Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities. Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds. Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds. Is your Alzheimer's acting up today? Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in your response to John. Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response: As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to the law's enactment. -- Cheers, John B. To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc. You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor speed increases were the cause. Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will clear up the confusion. Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths? What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else. Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? -- - Frank Krygowski I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities? I don't think bike helmets directly cause many fatalities, although they may cause some. The mechanism that's been proposed is this: Since the helmet is obviously larger than the bare human head, there must be a certain number of glancing blows to the helmet that would be near misses of a bare head, or perhaps that would have barely hit the head. Glancing blows induce rotational acceleration of the head, which is the predominant mechanism for brain damage. If the hit is hard enough and the rotational acceleration large enough, there can be shear damage to the blood vessels and other tissues in the brain. Damaged blood vessels can cause intercranial swelling, which can be fatal. But I don't think it's possible to determine how often this causes fatalities, nor other traumatic brain injuries, such as concussions. Yet it's pretty clear that bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen, during the time period that helmet use rose. Likewise, its clear that elite racer fatalities also rose. One way or other, the use of helmets seems to make things worse. Some have said a more likely mechanism is risk compensation. I think that's extremely likely regarding mountain biking, a sport in which risky riding is actively promoted. I suspect that if the plastic hats were forbidden instead of required, riders would be much more careful. I think the effect for road riders is probably less, but not absent. Over the years in this forum and elsewhere we've had remarks like "I'd never ride that road without a helmet." That's direct evidence of risk compensation. But all the above is detail, in my opinion. The bare fact is, despite the treasured anecdotes about lives saved, despite all the claims of tremendous protection, data on actual injuries and deaths show that bike helmets are not working. And that's not at all surprising to people who really understand their minimal certification standards. But I don't think that means bicyclists should worry. Data on actual injuries and deaths show that bicycling is, on average, a very safe activity. It's NOT the death trap that helmet promoters make it out to be. And every relevant study has found that its benefits FAR outweigh its tiny risks. OK, Tom, that's my view. Now can I ask you (for the third or fourth time): How effective do _you_ think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? The primary means of traumatic head injuries is a blow and NOT rotation force ... Oh really? And your source is...? As I pointed out in my paper and you do not seem to understand - there doesn't not seem to be any statistical evidence that a helmet save any life. But of course just as you hedge your bet - there could possibly be a rare outlier in which a helmet makes the difference between a serious injury and a fatality. OK, that's an answer, finally, after several requests. Thanks. So why wouldn't you answer my question until five messages of prodding? Wow... -- - Frank Krygowski |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 2/19/2019 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But... On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote: Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies. By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour de France. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg etc., etc. The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff. Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff involved. By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory... Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003." but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes... I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of correcting Tom. -- - Frank Krygowski Tell us all Frank - what does it matter if Simpson didn't die of a head injury from wearing a helmet? If you don't worry about posting nonsense, it doesn't matter at all! :-) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 2/19/2019 6:40 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 10:00:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2019 10:09 AM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:50 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:10:07 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote: Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts? Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance. Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph. Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts (and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash. Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph. Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration. The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago, but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets don't demonstrate any large scale benefit. And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and necessary life saving products. Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts. Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire or ability to actually think about them. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, minus the ad hominem and other nastiness that are inseparable from discussing anything at all with you, Franki-boy, that's a sort of an answer. But I knew all that, and so, I suspect, did most of the posters here. We've heard it all before, and it's a bore. However, you've missed the point of my posts, either deliberately or because your mind runs on the railroad tracks of your obsession. I wasn't comparing the relative efficacy of automobilist and bicyclist protection. I was pointing out that the philosophical justification for mandatory car seatbelt laws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws are the same, and that those who resist or accept the principle of one must do the same for the other, or be labelled irrational. Moving on to effective bicycle helmets, I would expect modern materials and knowledge to provide a solution. For instance, I can easily conceive of a bicycle helmet growing out of a HANS (a head and neck restraint against whiplash) as a sort of bowl of the same plastic as the HANS is made from, the bowl and as much of the lower part of the plastic surface of the HANS filled with D30, a military chemical compound used behind the outer skins of tanks; the compound goes hard in a microsecond and takes up all the shock of the impact. HANS devices are proven in automobile racing. D30 is proven in military use. I throw my expensive iPhone skinned in leather with D30 inside on concrete floors to demonstrate the amazing qualities of the stuff. In mass production it needn't cost more than helmets today (which I suspect have a huge markup of which most is spent on marketing). Let us therefore say that my suggestion, or any other plan for an effective lightweight cycling helmet proves workable, would you still object to a mandatory helmet law? Or would you by analogy with mandatory car seatbelt laws agree that a mandatory helmet law is a good thing? Andre Jute Bicycle helmets are not the hill to die on The latest "improvements" in a bicycle helmet is known as MIPS technology. This is a mounting system that allows the head to turn in the helmet when the helmet hits and usually sticks to the road surface. This prevents neck injuries and possibly some slight improvement in concussion protection. But they were expecting to get a real premium for it and in fact - helmets are becoming less popular because of the price. Most performance cyclists are of college age or not a whole lot older except from we old useless duds. With tuition rates so damn high and not getting any lower even the once popular Giro Helmets (a Bell helmet with better styling) has had to start dropping prices. This is already driving the price of MIPS helmets down. Bell isn't standing still but as I've said before - you cannot make a helmet that passes the standard and decreases concussions because it would be FAR too large for anyone to wear. MIPS is a reaction to the fact that currently certified helmets have not decreased bicyclist concussions. In fact, concussions have risen markedly in the helmet era. And it's interesting that America's most prominent helmet pusher, Randy Swart (AKA "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute") is pretty much against MIPS. He says that MIPS won't help. OTOH, he says that current helmets are wonderful... Where is your data Franky baby - show us the data. Mips has NOTHING to do with concussions and they do not advertise it as such. From https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-...-say-1.1367454 "New designs claim to address concussion" "There are now helmet designs out there that claim to lower the risk of concussion by reducing rotational acceleration of the brain." "One is known as MIPS, an acronym for Multi-directional Impact Protection System." Or if you prefer, from the inventors themselves, at http://mipsprotection.com/mips-faq/#...fect-the-brain "Several researchers have linked severe brain injuries like Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) and Subdural Hematoma (SDH) to rotational motion transmitted to the brain from angled impacts." "Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) or concussion is also believed to be caused by rotational motion." Note the word "concussion" in that last sentence, Tom. (sheesh!) -- - Frank Krygowski Thanks for sending us a really great medical paper from the company that invented and market's MIPS technology to helmet manufacturers. That is a highly reliable source of medical information. It didn't need to be from a medical journal. I was responding to your claim "Mips has NOTHING to do with concussions and they do not advertise it as such." All I had to do was show some advertising copy, which I did. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:40:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But... On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote: Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies. By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour de France. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg etc., etc. The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff. Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff involved. By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory... Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003." but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes... I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of correcting Tom. You could make it a retirement project except it would be a full time occupation :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:28:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But... On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote: Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies. By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour de France. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg etc., etc. The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff. Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff involved. By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory... Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003." but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes... I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of correcting Tom. -- - Frank Krygowski Tell us all Frank - what does it matter if Simpson didn't die of a head injury from wearing a helmet? Simple. It is just more proof that you don't know what you are talking about. -- Cheers, John B. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 19/02/2019 5:37 p.m., AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2019 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2019 1:12 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other, larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not knowledgeable and easily influenced? Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times. The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective. They are life savers!" After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect against minor injuries." But so many still won't be caught riding without one. Scalp lacerations can be serious.Â* I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle.Â* Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any standard. But apparently, that's not true for the populations that suffer the greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar injuries, including real traumatic brain injury. Right? I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the majority of those injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know - motorists, pedestrians, people walking around their own homes... We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with other members of our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously icy, including trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more. Nobody wore helmets - go figure. One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch and went down like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said "Tsk - no helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle, then stopped herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets! O.K., I went down in ice on my bike face first and sliced up my face but not my scalp.Â* The facial laceration stopped at the helmet line.Â* Are we going to trade anecdotes?Â* I'm not telling anyone what choice to make, but wearing a helmet on a bike is not an idiotic or laughable choice simply because hikers, walkers, gardeners or showerers don't wear helmets.Â* I don't hike, walk, garden or shower at speeds above 40mph.Â* When I hike in the snow, I do wear crampons -- the little ones for my walking shoes. You're right that trading anecdotes doesn't have much value. But please admit that _lots_ of helmet promotion is done by trading anecdotes. It happens here, and it happens almost every time helmets are discussed anywhere. And let's realize that there are roughly 50,000 TBI deaths each year in the U.S., and far more TB injuries. Each one of those could generate at least one anecdote. If those were examined, only a tiny proportion would have anything to do with riding bikes. That's one of the main fallacies about the bike helmet hype. Bicycling is slandered as a major brain injury concern. But the "cost to society" of bicycling's TBI count is negligible compared to other TBI sources. It's risk per mile or per hour is negligible as well, assuming you're not getting crazy because you're feeling protected by your helmet. It really is safer than pedestrian travel. Yet helmet promoters have convinced millions of people that only fools would ever ride without head protection. Still, I'm not saying wearing a helmet on a bike is idiotic or laughable. I've never ragged on any of my many, many helmet wearing friends because of their headgear. OTOH, I have had friends, acquaintances, and even anonymous abusive motorists who have yelled at me, cursed at me, etc. because I chose to ride a bike without a helmet. Reread the article by Peter Flax. I'm far from alone. Out there in Left field, the old LAW, which has been taken over by communists, says the success of helmet campaigns may be measured by a 25-year high in 'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths: https://bikeleague.org/content/press...-health-crisis 'cyclist & pedestrian' deaths? Not too much conflation, eh? Seems a common conflation. We often hear people hear asking why pedestrians don't have helmets. Especially when gardening... |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 6:22 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2019 10:05 AM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM, wrote: Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road? You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data. Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much. Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the right direction. Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped out by a few miles per hour more speed? That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance of you actually giving data.) Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities.. Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds. Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds. Is your Alzheimer's acting up today? Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in your response to John. Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response: As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to the law's enactment. -- Cheers, John B. To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc. You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor speed increases were the cause. Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will clear up the confusion. Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths? What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else. Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? -- - Frank Krygowski I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities? I don't think bike helmets directly cause many fatalities, although they may cause some. The mechanism that's been proposed is this: Since the helmet is obviously larger than the bare human head, there must be a certain number of glancing blows to the helmet that would be near misses of a bare head, or perhaps that would have barely hit the head. Glancing blows induce rotational acceleration of the head, which is the predominant mechanism for brain damage. If the hit is hard enough and the rotational acceleration large enough, there can be shear damage to the blood vessels and other tissues in the brain. Damaged blood vessels can cause intercranial swelling, which can be fatal. But I don't think it's possible to determine how often this causes fatalities, nor other traumatic brain injuries, such as concussions. Yet it's pretty clear that bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen, during the time period that helmet use rose. Likewise, its clear that elite racer fatalities also rose. One way or other, the use of helmets seems to make things worse. Some have said a more likely mechanism is risk compensation. I think that's extremely likely regarding mountain biking, a sport in which risky riding is actively promoted. I suspect that if the plastic hats were forbidden instead of required, riders would be much more careful. I think the effect for road riders is probably less, but not absent. Over the years in this forum and elsewhere we've had remarks like "I'd never ride that road without a helmet." That's direct evidence of risk compensation. But all the above is detail, in my opinion. The bare fact is, despite the treasured anecdotes about lives saved, despite all the claims of tremendous protection, data on actual injuries and deaths show that bike helmets are not working. And that's not at all surprising to people who really understand their minimal certification standards. But I don't think that means bicyclists should worry. Data on actual injuries and deaths show that bicycling is, on average, a very safe activity. It's NOT the death trap that helmet promoters make it out to be. And every relevant study has found that its benefits FAR outweigh its tiny risks. OK, Tom, that's my view. Now can I ask you (for the third or fourth time): How effective do _you_ think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? The primary means of traumatic head injuries is a blow and NOT rotation force ... Oh really? And your source is...? As I pointed out in my paper and you do not seem to understand - there doesn't not seem to be any statistical evidence that a helmet save any life.. But of course just as you hedge your bet - there could possibly be a rare outlier in which a helmet makes the difference between a serious injury and a fatality. OK, that's an answer, finally, after several requests. Thanks. So why wouldn't you answer my question until five messages of prodding? Wow... -- - Frank Krygowski I wrote that paper 20 years ago and YOU say "finally"? What is it with you that you seem incapable of understanding anything. That you only are here to make the world's most stupid arguments? What we need is more information such as yours where companies that have a new invention market it with unproven claims and YOU use that as "proof"? I suggest that since the helmet companies themselves use an IMP:ACT standard that you get your head out of your backside. https://helmets.org/general.htm "Human brains can be injured by impact, of course, or by exceptionally violent rotation of the head, when the brain remains stationary, giving blood vessels and nerves a yank." Do you see that "OR"? I've been in countless crashes and my head was never once injured by violent twisting motion. People who USE helmets know that the areas of a helmet that could cause a violent twisting motion are constructed in such a manner that they collapse rather than transfer any such motion. So almost all head injuries sustained by bicyclists are from impacts and not twisting motions. Are you suggesting that they construct helmets in such a manner that they do not have this protection so that MIPS can do it? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:29:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 6:28 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: I try to refrain from correcting Tom's many mistakes. Really, I do. But... On 2/19/2019 11:49 AM, wrote: Bell started making bicycle helmets in the mid-1970's. By the 1980's they were universally used though climbers would often through them off on heavy climbs they would also get new ones at the top because they were being sponsored by helmet companies. By the 1980s they were universally used? Look at photos of the 1985 Tour de France. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ab...2c4e8500fb.jpg http://velopress.wpengine.com/wp-con...lemond-the.jpg http://imasportsphile.com/wp-content...d-Hinault2.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3665/1...6c5ff732_b.jpg etc., etc. The death rates during this period was about 1 every couple of years. And a lot of those were like Tom Simpson who if memory serves rode over a cliff. Nope. He died in 1967, supposedly from drug aided overexertion. No cliff involved. By 2010 the UCI finally made helmets mandatory... Sort of true, if "by 2010" you really mean "in 2003." but at the same time carbon fiber bikes were coming strongly into vogue. These bikes were significantly more aero than the previous bikes... I'd better stop now. I don't want to make a full time job out of correcting Tom. -- - Frank Krygowski Tell us all Frank - what does it matter if Simpson didn't die of a head injury from wearing a helmet? If you don't worry about posting nonsense, it doesn't matter at all! :-) -- - Frank Krygowski The subject was the frequency of pro racers dying in crashes. This obviously is a subject that you cannot dispute so instead you turn to anything other than that. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:31:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 6:40 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 10:00:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2019 10:09 AM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:50 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:10:07 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote: Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts? Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance. Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph.. Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts (and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash. Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph. Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration.. The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago, but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets don't demonstrate any large scale benefit. And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and necessary life saving products. Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts. Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire or ability to actually think about them. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, minus the ad hominem and other nastiness that are inseparable from discussing anything at all with you, Franki-boy, that's a sort of an answer. But I knew all that, and so, I suspect, did most of the posters here. We've heard it all before, and it's a bore. However, you've missed the point of my posts, either deliberately or because your mind runs on the railroad tracks of your obsession. I wasn't comparing the relative efficacy of automobilist and bicyclist protection. I was pointing out that the philosophical justification for mandatory car seatbelt laws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws are the same, and that those who resist or accept the principle of one must do the same for the other, or be labelled irrational. Moving on to effective bicycle helmets, I would expect modern materials and knowledge to provide a solution. For instance, I can easily conceive of a bicycle helmet growing out of a HANS (a head and neck restraint against whiplash) as a sort of bowl of the same plastic as the HANS is made from, the bowl and as much of the lower part of the plastic surface of the HANS filled with D30, a military chemical compound used behind the outer skins of tanks; the compound goes hard in a microsecond and takes up all the shock of the impact. HANS devices are proven in automobile racing. D30 is proven in military use. I throw my expensive iPhone skinned in leather with D30 inside on concrete floors to demonstrate the amazing qualities of the stuff. In mass production it needn't cost more than helmets today (which I suspect have a huge markup of which most is spent on marketing). Let us therefore say that my suggestion, or any other plan for an effective lightweight cycling helmet proves workable, would you still object to a mandatory helmet law? Or would you by analogy with mandatory car seatbelt laws agree that a mandatory helmet law is a good thing? Andre Jute Bicycle helmets are not the hill to die on The latest "improvements" in a bicycle helmet is known as MIPS technology. This is a mounting system that allows the head to turn in the helmet when the helmet hits and usually sticks to the road surface. This prevents neck injuries and possibly some slight improvement in concussion protection. But they were expecting to get a real premium for it and in fact - helmets are becoming less popular because of the price. Most performance cyclists are of college age or not a whole lot older except from we old useless duds. With tuition rates so damn high and not getting any lower even the once popular Giro Helmets (a Bell helmet with better styling) has had to start dropping prices. This is already driving the price of MIPS helmets down. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. | James[_8_] | Techniques | 2 | November 6th 14 11:57 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Social Issues | 310 | June 23rd 05 07:56 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | UK | 14 | April 26th 05 10:54 AM |
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. | caracol40 | General | 0 | December 21st 04 11:58 AM |