Nice Bike to Work Day Today--With Observations on Bicycle Types,Lighting, and Helmets

On May 14, 8:08*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 14, 10:12*am, Jay Beattie wrote:





On May 13, 9:29*pm, Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
*Jay Beattie wrote:

On May 13, 6:36*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 13, 8:26*pm, SMS wrote:

"If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
call him vile names."

— Elbert Hubbard

"If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
to refute them. *By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."

Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
Do you have an objection to that agenda?

Yes. *If it is dishonest. *Most organizations that take one side of
any dispute usually ignore or mis-cast information that is contrary to
their position. *Fair and balanced does not describe any of the web-
sites I have seen either advocating or protesting MHLs. *Frank's and
SMS both go over the top and many that are true for them but not
others. *Individual risk profiles are entirely ignored. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay, if you want to talk about "Frank's" website, you should be
talking about Bicycling Life. *That was the one I initiated and helped
found.

That was a typo -- I'm not talking about "your" website (if you had
one) or SMS's website. I am talking about both of your arguments, and
I am not saying either of you is lying. I am saying that you are
taking opposite sides -- which become more polarized and abstract and
ugly as the arguments escalate. No one is fair and balanced or
impartial. So when one side accuses the other of being unfair or
inaccurate or even lying, my natural response is "pot, kettle,
black." If I were a judge, I'd ignore both sides and hire my own
experts. -- Jay Beattie.

On 14/05/10 8:27 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That was a typo -- I'm not talking about "your" website (if you had
one) or SMS's website. I am talking about both of your arguments, and
I am not saying either of you is lying. I am saying that you are
taking opposite sides -- which become more polarized and abstract and
ugly as the arguments escalate. No one is fair and balanced or
impartial. So when one side accuses the other of being unfair or
inaccurate or even lying, my natural response is "pot, kettle,
black." If I were a judge, I'd ignore both sides and hire my own
experts. -- Jay Beattie.

I take exception to your analysis. I am very much against any mandatory
helmet laws, and my site explains the reasons why MHLs are a bad idea.

At the same time, I make it clear why the use of logical fallacies (i.e.
driving helmets), the mis-use of statistics, and the lack of scientific
method on those other sites are not in the best interest in stopping
MHLs. Those other sites may provide false reassurance to people that
lack even the most basic critical thinking skills, that there are
absolutely no benefits in helmet use, but you and I (and most people)
understand why those are reassurances have no factual basis.

Actually it's rather unfair to accuse the people behind those other
sites of lacking critical thinking skills, because in fact they almost
certainly do understand why their statements have no logical or factual
basis. They say what they say because they see it as advancing their
agenda, not because it's true. If their goal is to stop MHLs then their
approach is wrong. The stuff they present is so specious that they are
only fooling themselves if they think that more than a handful of
readers are fooled, even in rec.bicycles.tech you see the same few
people making the same specious arguments. Certainly if there's public
input on an MHL, those making the decision are going to listen to
paramedics, doctors, nurses, etc talking about what they see at accident
sites and in the ER, versus listening to the other side talking about
driving and gardening helmets.

SMS wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.

OMG, have you looked at some of those sites? It's like watching Fox
News with their motto of "We distort, we decide."

Dude, you lose all credibility when you make these hysterical, pandering (to
leftist AHZs?)comments about Fox, Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, etc.

To paraphrase YOU, when you can't refute/argue issues, resort to insults and
name-calling.

Think about it.

BS

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.

This is BS.

Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.

I ride both horses and bikes. In the horse world we had a recent
almost-tragedy where an Olympic level dressage rider had a freak
accident while riding in a soft arena. Her horse simply got his legs
tangled and tripped and fell. She was in a coma for weeks, and there
was serious doubt she would recover. Fortunately she came out of the
coma and is recovering now.

Dressage is a very safe equestrian sport - no jumping, primarily riding
very quiet horses, riding in manicured rings. But the head can still
suffer a serious brain injury when you fall from the height of a horse,
and even the best trained horse can trip and fall. There is no doubt
that her injury would not have been as severe if she had been wearing a
helmet.

Most advanced dressage riders don't wear helmets. That's changing.
They see that freak accidents DO happen. A 3-day rider elected to wear
a helmet instead of a top-hat in the dressage phase at a major event a
few weeks ago. (They wear helmets in the other phases of the event when
they are jumping.)

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254183

And grand prix dressage riders (riders at the top of the sport) are also
starting to wear helmets in competition:

http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/dressage_riders_wearing_helmet.html

Helmet advocates (in all sports, not just bicycling) know that it's
quite easy to protect the brain from serious injury in otherwise "easy"
falls by wearing a helmet. They advocate helmet use to prevent injuries
- not because their sport is incredibly dangerous but because ACCIDENTS
HAPPEN and it's so easy to keep the accident from turning into a
life-changing tragic event by wearing a helmet to protect your brain.
If you break your arm it will heal. If you break your brain it is much
more likely to be a permanent life-changing event.

If you don't value your brain, don't wear a helmet. When I see you on a
bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how little you value your own
brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a person. I am less likely to
take anything you say seriously as you are clearly demonstrating poor
judgment (in my opinion) about your own well being.

But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."

In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
your own prejudices.

You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.

jc

JC Dill wrote:

When I see you on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how
little you value your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a
person. I am less likely to take anything you say seriously as you
are clearly demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your
own well being.


But ff course making encompassing judgments, based on such a small part
of someone's behavior, gives you a whole **** load of credibility.

--
-Don

www.cosmoslair.com
Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)

Op 14-5-2010 18:19, JC Dill schreef:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.

This is BS.

Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.

I ride both horses and bikes. In the horse world we had a recent
almost-tragedy where an Olympic level dressage rider had a freak
accident while riding in a soft arena. Her horse simply got his legs
tangled and tripped and fell. She was in a coma for weeks, and there was
serious doubt she would recover. Fortunately she came out of the coma
and is recovering now.

Dressage is a very safe equestrian sport - no jumping, primarily riding
very quiet horses, riding in manicured rings. But the head can still
suffer a serious brain injury when you fall from the height of a horse,
and even the best trained horse can trip and fall. There is no doubt
that her injury would not have been as severe if she had been wearing a
helmet.

Most advanced dressage riders don't wear helmets. That's changing. They
see that freak accidents DO happen. A 3-day rider elected to wear a
helmet instead of a top-hat in the dressage phase at a major event a few
weeks ago. (They wear helmets in the other phases of the event when they
are jumping.)

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254183

And grand prix dressage riders (riders at the top of the sport) are also
starting to wear helmets in competition:

http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/dressage_riders_wearing_helmet.html


Helmet advocates (in all sports, not just bicycling) know that it's
quite easy to protect the brain from serious injury in otherwise "easy"
falls by wearing a helmet. They advocate helmet use to prevent injuries
- not because their sport is incredibly dangerous but because ACCIDENTS
HAPPEN and it's so easy to keep the accident from turning into a
life-changing tragic event by wearing a helmet to protect your brain. If
you break your arm it will heal. If you break your brain it is much more
likely to be a permanent life-changing event.

If you don't value your brain, don't wear a helmet. When I see you on a
bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how little you value your own
brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a person. I am less likely to take
anything you say seriously as you are clearly demonstrating poor
judgment (in my opinion) about your own well being.

But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."

In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
your own prejudices.

You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.

jc



Franks next question will be 'do you wear a helmet walking the street?'

Lou

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:19:31 -0700, JC Dill
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.

This is BS.

Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.

I ride both horses and bikes. In the horse world we had a recent
almost-tragedy where an Olympic level dressage rider had a freak
accident while riding in a soft arena. Her horse simply got his legs
tangled and tripped and fell. She was in a coma for weeks, and there
was serious doubt she would recover. Fortunately she came out of the
coma and is recovering now.

Dressage is a very safe equestrian sport - no jumping, primarily riding
very quiet horses, riding in manicured rings. But the head can still
suffer a serious brain injury when you fall from the height of a horse,
and even the best trained horse can trip and fall. There is no doubt
that her injury would not have been as severe if she had been wearing a
helmet.

Most advanced dressage riders don't wear helmets. That's changing.
They see that freak accidents DO happen. A 3-day rider elected to wear
a helmet instead of a top-hat in the dressage phase at a major event a
few weeks ago. (They wear helmets in the other phases of the event when
they are jumping.)

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254183

And grand prix dressage riders (riders at the top of the sport) are also
starting to wear helmets in competition:

http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/dressage_riders_wearing_helmet.html

Helmet advocates (in all sports, not just bicycling) know that it's
quite easy to protect the brain from serious injury in otherwise "easy"
falls by wearing a helmet. They advocate helmet use to prevent injuries
- not because their sport is incredibly dangerous but because ACCIDENTS
HAPPEN and it's so easy to keep the accident from turning into a
life-changing tragic event by wearing a helmet to protect your brain.
If you break your arm it will heal. If you break your brain it is much
more likely to be a permanent life-changing event.

If you don't value your brain, don't wear a helmet. When I see you on a
bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how little you value your own
brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a person. I am less likely to
take anything you say seriously as you are clearly demonstrating poor
judgment (in my opinion) about your own well being.

But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."

In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
your own prejudices.

You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.

jc

Dear JC,

How far does a rider's head fall before it hits the ground from atop a
typical horse?

How far is the helmet drop in testing?

To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

JC Dill wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.

This is BS.

Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific
fact.
I ride both horses and bikes. In the horse world we had a recent
almost-tragedy where an Olympic level dressage rider had a freak
accident while riding in a soft arena. Her horse simply got his legs
tangled and tripped and fell. She was in a coma for weeks, and there
was serious doubt she would recover. Fortunately she came out of the
coma and is recovering now.

Dressage is a very safe equestrian sport - no jumping, primarily
riding very quiet horses, riding in manicured rings. But the head
can still suffer a serious brain injury when you fall from the height
of a horse, and even the best trained horse can trip and fall. There
is no doubt that her injury would not have been as severe if she had
been wearing a helmet.

Most advanced dressage riders don't wear helmets. That's changing.
They see that freak accidents DO happen. A 3-day rider elected to
wear a helmet instead of a top-hat in the dressage phase at a major
event a few weeks ago. (They wear helmets in the other phases of the
event when they are jumping.)

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254183

And grand prix dressage riders (riders at the top of the sport) are
also starting to wear helmets in competition:

http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/dressage_riders_wearing_helmet.html

Helmet advocates (in all sports, not just bicycling) know that it's
quite easy to protect the brain from serious injury in otherwise
"easy" falls by wearing a helmet. They advocate helmet use to
prevent injuries - not because their sport is incredibly dangerous
but because ACCIDENTS HAPPEN and it's so easy to keep the accident
from turning into a life-changing tragic event by wearing a helmet to
protect your brain. If you break your arm it will heal. If you break your
brain it is
much more likely to be a permanent life-changing event.

If you don't value your brain, don't wear a helmet. When I see you
on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how little you value
your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a person. I am less
likely to take anything you say seriously as you are clearly
demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your own well being.

But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."

In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
your own prejudices.

You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.

jc

You will, of course, be flamed for daring to express your opinion and
experience. And once you defend your viewpoint, the insults will become
increasingly mean and personal.

Welcome to /wreck/ Usenet.

BS

On May 14, 11:27*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 14, 8:08*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On May 14, 10:12*am, Jay Beattie wrote:

On May 13, 9:29*pm, Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
*Jay Beattie wrote:

On May 13, 6:36*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 13, 8:26*pm, SMS wrote:

"If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
call him vile names."

— Elbert Hubbard

"If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
to refute them. *By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."

Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
Do you have an objection to that agenda?

Yes. *If it is dishonest. *Most organizations that take one side of
any dispute usually ignore or mis-cast information that is contrary to
their position. *Fair and balanced does not describe any of the web-
sites I have seen either advocating or protesting MHLs. *Frank's and
SMS both go over the top and many that are true for them but not
others. *Individual risk profiles are entirely ignored. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay, if you want to talk about "Frank's" website, you should be
talking about Bicycling Life. *That was the one I initiated and helped
found.

That was a typo -- I'm not talking about "your" website (if you had
one) or SMS's website. *I am talking about both of your arguments, and
I am not saying either of you is lying. *I am saying that you are
taking opposite sides -- which become more polarized and abstract and
ugly as the arguments escalate. *No one is fair and balanced or
impartial. *So when one side accuses the other of being unfair or
inaccurate or even lying, my natural response is "pot, kettle,
black." *If I were a judge, I'd ignore both sides and hire my own
experts.

Of course, our entire justice system - plus most of the work of most
lawyers, I think - is based on having two sides present opposing
arguments. So does the intellectual sport of debating.

Perhaps you're not that kind of lawyer. Some do specialize in mere
paperwork, such as wills and estates. But surely you know many who
argue in court. Do you recommend the judges ignore them?

If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
skeptic?

(And BTW, I've served as an expert witness, and turned down
opportunities to do more of the same.)

- Frank Krygowski

On May 14, 12:19*pm, JC Dill wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.

This is BS.

Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. *An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. *This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.