Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
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.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/20/2019 11:43 AM, wrote:


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"?

YOU said MIPS was not advertised as having anything to do with reducing
concussions. I gave a link where inventors of MIPS advertised it as
reducing concussions.

You're forgetting your own arguments. You're losing track of the
discussion. It's really unfortunate for you.

And it makes detailed responses to your posts mostly a waste of time.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/20/2019 11:45 AM, wrote:
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.

Simpson did NOT die because of a crash. He simply collapsed from
drug-enhanced overexertion, exacerbated by some illness.

It had nothing to do with pro racers dying in crashes.

Sheesh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tom_Simpson

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
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.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Why do you insist on making false comparisons? The overwhelming majority of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities is from interactions with cars.

Pedestrians being slower remain in the "danger zones" for at least twice the time that cyclists do. Were helmets effective they would be more than twice as effective on pedestrians as cyclists.

On 2/20/2019 11:47 AM, wrote:

Since you do not buy nor use helmets what do you know about their construction and why are you implying that the normal helmet isn't already designed to prevent that twisting motion?

Wow. You have a never-ending compulsion about posting mistakes!

I have several helmets in the basement right now. FWIW, if I choose to
ride in an event that mandates helmets, I do reluctantly wear one.
Granted, I do fewer of those rides than I used to, but I still do some.

As to the construction: I've cut or broken helmets apart and examined
their cross sections. There's nothing much special in there, Tom. Except
perhaps for MIPS helmets (which I have not dissected) there's no
anti-twist magic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:29:59 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 11:47 AM, wrote:

Since you do not buy nor use helmets what do you know about their construction and why are you implying that the normal helmet isn't already designed to prevent that twisting motion?

Wow. You have a never-ending compulsion about posting mistakes!

I have several helmets in the basement right now. FWIW, if I choose to
ride in an event that mandates helmets, I do reluctantly wear one.
Granted, I do fewer of those rides than I used to, but I still do some.

As to the construction: I've cut or broken helmets apart and examined
their cross sections. There's nothing much special in there, Tom. Except
perhaps for MIPS helmets (which I have not dissected) there's no
anti-twist magic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I thought that you said that you were a trained engineer? The gaps in the helmet coverage front and back are not there merely for the cooling effect of vents. But I'm sure that you'll deny it.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...vt=0&eim=1,2,6

This is from 1980. Teams had the option of wearing helmets or not. Note that they did in many cases even though they were more or less useless foam rubber ones.

Helmet companies very rapidly grew large enough to sponsor teams and that put bicycle helmets into the everyday jargon of bicyclists.

Tell us all so that we can understand your rhetoric - are you telling us that helmets work if they have MIPS technology? Or are you just making your random bull**** speech on how I am wrong because you're an asshole?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
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.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.

Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack. By the way, what is gardening? Is it climbing a 20 foot wall with suction cups to tend a wisteria vine? I see gardeners wearing these all the time: http://tinyurl.com/yxu3rdg8 Gardening can be super-dangerous.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares. Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain. Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times. For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.

Moreover, bicyclists are road users. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets. Even the electric scooter riders have to wear helmets.


814.534 Failure of motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear; exception; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear if the person operates a motor assisted scooter on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) A person is exempt from the protective headgear requirement of subsection (1) of this section if wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person.

(3) The first time a person is convicted of an offense under this section, the person may not be required to pay a fine if the person proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear, is a specific fine traffic violation. The presumptive fine for failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear is $25. [2001 c.749 §16; 2011 c.597 §105]


$25 buckaroos, baby! I go twice as fast as those scooter guys, so why not bikes? Are we special? I sure hope so!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 20/02/2019 1:55 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
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.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.



Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack. By the way, what is gardening? Is it climbing a 20 foot wall with suction cups to tend a wisteria vine? I see gardeners wearing these all the time: http://tinyurl.com/yxu3rdg8 Gardening can be super-dangerous.


And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares. Do helmets

Well you could stop there.


prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is
certain. Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet.
The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no"


because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright
at all times. For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and
broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your
experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly
of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care
about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck
hospital in outer nowhere.

Moreover, bicyclists are road users. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets. Even the electric scooter riders have to wear helmets.


814.534 Failure of motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear; exception; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear if the person operates a motor assisted scooter on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) A person is exempt from the protective headgear requirement of subsection (1) of this section if wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person.

(3) The first time a person is convicted of an offense under this section, the person may not be required to pay a fine if the person proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear, is a specific fine traffic violation. The presumptive fine for failure of a motor assisted scooter operator to wear protective headgear is $25. [2001 c.749 §16; 2011 c.597 §105]


$25 buckaroos, baby! I go twice as fast as those scooter guys, so why not bikes? Are we special? I sure hope so!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/20/2019 1:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:07:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:

We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.

Well, the gardening helmet argument is worthy of a wisecrack.

Please be honest. The point of citing that paper [Powell, et. al., 1998]
was not to say gardeners should wear helmets. The point was to show that
compared to other normal activities, bicycling is not terribly
dangerous, despite propaganda that claims it is.

If you disagree, put some data up and let's discuss it.

And why does it matter that people don't use helmets in other activities? Who cares.

Most bicyclists who say "I never ride without a helmet" probably don't
care! To one degree or another, they've bought into the propaganda
claiming 1) bicycling is really dangerous and 2) helmets make it so much
safer that they are really worth wearing and promoting. Since those
riders don't question those points, they don't examine the relevant data.

But both of those points are demonstrably wrong. Accepting them without
question does contribute to discrimination against cycling.

Do helmets prevent certain bicycling-related head injuries. Yes. That fact is certain.

So why should it NOT be the first safety tip taught to kids walking home
from school, or to other pedestrians? Why is it not publicized to
motorists as often as seatbelt use?

Will a particular individual benefit from wearing a helmet. The answer is "it depends." For you, the answer is "no" because you don't ride in inclement weather and magically remain upright at all times.

I do ride in rain, Jay. I avoid it when I can, but there are times I
can't avoid it, so I put up with it. And I ride in snow and ice
conditions. I don't ride far, but I've done it within the last couple of
weeks.

You're correct, though, that I do remain upright. I haven't crashed on
the bike for over ten years now (when our tandem forks broke), and
before that, for over 15 years, when I skinned my knee a little bit in
my first ever moving on-road fall. So what's better - to put on a
helmet, feel protected and ride so you crash frequently? Or to not use a
helmet and never have a serious crash?

For me, the answer is "yes." I've got the scars and broken helmets to prove it. Why should I make my choices based on your experience or the "average" experience -- average being comprised mostly of potatoes who ride their bikes once a year at eight MPH. I don't care about the faceless data points in some ****ty case study from Toadsuck hospital in outer nowhere.

Yeah, as if the "elite" riders are the ones with scars and broken
helmets! How macho!

But if a case study doesn't agree with your preconceptions, that doesn't
mean it's a "****ty case study." It could be that your preconceptions
are wrong. The serious way of examining the validity of the study is to
read it, discuss it, point out the errors you find, etc. I've done that
with some "Danger! Danger!" studies like Hoffman 2010. Why don't you do
it with Powell et.al.?

Moreover, bicyclists are road users. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets. Even the electric scooter riders have to wear helmets.

First, as mentioned several times: Motorcycling's fatality per hour risk
is over 30 times greater than that of bicycling. And if you carefully
examine a motorcycle helmet, you _may_ find that it's significantly
different than a bicycle helmet. Despite the simplistic claim of
similarity from those who can count all the way to two ("Look! Two
wheels!") the situations and the risks are far from equivalent.

Besides, in my state adult motorcyclists do not have to wear helmets.
The same is true in four of the five adjacent states.

But please be clear: Are you now lobbying for a mandatory helmet law for
bicyclists? We used to get that on this forum, but most of those busy
bodies have stopped trying to take on a nanny role.

Personally, I'm for letting each rider decide. But I'm also for
rebutting the fear mongering and false claims. And I think it's weird
that some otherwise knowledgeable people are in favor of helmet
promotion (or even mandates) while being in favor of promoting cycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Tell us, Franki-boy, do you make a lot of money selling the honey from the bees in your bonnet?

Andre Jute
Isn't it odd when a clown cannot take a joke?

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 5:07:18 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2019 8:11 AM, Duane wrote:
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.Â* We often hear people hear asking why
pedestrians don't have helmets.Â* Especially when gardening...

Duane, you have never rebutted the data related to your pedestrian and
gardening wisecracks.

1) Bicyclists are routinely told they MUST wear helmets to save their
lives. Yet pedestrians suffer far more annual fatalities than
bicyclists. Pedestrians suffer far more fatalities per mile traveled
than bicyclists, a fact that has been documented for every nation whose
data I could find. Yet pedestrians get no helmet propaganda.

(Pedestrians also suffer far more TBI fatalities per mile traveled than
bicyclists, but that data is harder to tease out, because almost nobody
bothers to even examine the TBI count for pedestrians.)

2) Bicycling is routinely treated as the source of countless injuries.
Yet the paper Powell, et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", _Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise_, 1998, Vol.30 pp. 1246-9 surveyed over 5000 people
and found those who chose bicycling from among those exercise modes had
the fewest injuries per month.

Duane, wisecracks may sound satisfying to you, but you're refusing to
deal with real data. Try learning a bit before posting, and try posting
facts.


--
- Frank Krygowski