Sad helmet incident

Am 21.01.2020 um 14:08 schrieb sms:
Another insurance issue is electric bicycles (and electric scooters). On
most policies neither your homeowners insurance nor your vehicle
insurance covers you for loss or injury unless you pay extra, if they
offer such coverage at all. My homeowners insurance doesn't cover "
“motor conveyance on land.�

"Electric scooter riders might think their auto insurance would kick in
to cover an electric scooter accident, but automobile insurance
generally doesn’t cover vehicles with less than four wheels. And
homeowner’s or renter’s insurance may cover an accident that occurs on a
traditional bicycle, but it does not cover motorized bike or scooter trips.

This is one of the reaons why Germany has defined that "electric
bicycles that only move when turning the pedals and that don't exceed 25
km/h in electric speed" are counted as normal bicycles for all legal
purposes including liability insurance.

Ebikes exceeding 25 km/h and Electric scooters need to carry a "vehicle
insurance plate", just like gas powered small motorbikes ("Mopeds") need.

On 1/21/2020 5:30 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 21.01.2020 um 14:08 schrieb sms:
Another insurance issue is electric bicycles (and electric scooters).
On most policies neither your homeowners insurance nor your vehicle
insurance covers you for loss or injury unless you pay extra, if they
offer such coverage at all. My homeowners insurance doesn't cover "
“motor conveyance on land.�

"Electric scooter riders might think their auto insurance would kick
in to cover an electric scooter accident, but automobile insurance
generally doesn’t cover vehicles with less than four wheels. And
homeowner’s or renter’s insurance may cover an accident that occurs on
a traditional bicycle, but it does not cover motorized bike or scooter
trips.

This is one of the reaons why Germany has defined that "electric
bicycles that only move when turning the pedals and that don't exceed 25
km/h in electric speed" are counted as normal bicycles for all legal
purposes including liability insurance.

Ebikes exceeding 25 km/h and Electric scooters need to carry a "vehicle
insurance plate", just like gas powered small motorbikes ("Mopeds") need.

Yeah, some ebikes are essentially mopeds. But I don't think our
insurance companies over here have distinguished between electric assist
when pedaling, and a motorized bicycle with a throttle, neither of which
need to be licensed, as far as I know.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:31:41 AM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
Oculus Lights wrote:

Twice, I would have been dead if not for wearing a helmet when I
crashed on a bike.

Helmet wearers love to make assertions like this. If they were anything like true, a lot more of the roughly half of us who don't wear helmets would already be dead.

Or maybe the half who do wear helmets are much more clumsy, reckless, fragile, and unlucky than we are, such that their lives depend on their choice of headgear?

On the whole, your odds of getting killed while riding your bike aren't measurably better than they were when nobody wore bicycle helmets. Explain how that could be, if helmets are so very effective.

Morbidity counts, and gross mortality rates say little about the effect of helmet use on any particular individual. In other words, my experience is not necessarily representative of the average and vice versa. Population studies may be an appropriate guide for crafting public policy or statutes, but I certainly don't base my choices on them. And if I did, I would look at a more tailored cohort, e.g. http://media.oregonlive.com/commutin...bike-study.pdf YMMV, and you certainly can chose not to wear a helmet in Austin since you're over 18.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 1/21/2020 7:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Morbidity counts, and gross mortality rates say little about the effect of helmet use on any particular individual. In other words, my experience is not necessarily representative of the average and vice versa. Population studies may be an appropriate guide for crafting public policy or statutes, but I certainly don't base my choices on them. And if I did, I would look at a more tailored cohort, e.g. http://media.oregonlive.com/commutin...bike-study.pdf YMMV, and you certainly can chose not to wear a helmet in Austin since you're over 18.

That's the eternal debate. No one disputes that helmets do make
individual cyclists safer in head impact crashes. But the number of
head-impact crashes is sufficiently low that you're not going to see
much of a difference in whole population studies. Those opposed to
helmets will cite those statistics as "proof" that helmets provide no
benefit, even thought they almost certainly are aware that that line of
argument is nonsensical.

LAB has a coherent stand on the issue of helmets: "“We certainly promote
helmets,� Ken McLeod, the league’s policy director, said. “Helmets do
make individual bicyclists safer. We just think a mandatory helmet law
is the wrong policy for federal or state governments to pursue.�"
Educating cyclists on the benefits of wearing a helmet is a better
approach than creating a paternalistic nanny state.

Oculus Lights writes:

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:05:10 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

--

I always wear a helmet when on the bike, and aggressively argue back
at anyone who says they shouldn't be mandatory for all ages. Twice, I
would have been dead if not for wearing a helmet when I crashed on a
bike.

If you want an argument you've come to the right place.

Personally I doubt that the benefits of helmets outweigh the costs for
many, if not most cyclists, and very likely all four year olds.
"Mandatory" is a step beyond, to the men with the sticks and guns and
prison cells. I think you stand alone there on rbt.

On 1/20/2020 10:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:43:16 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 2:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:18 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 6:55:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

Yes, its true, I'm over the age of 16.

So every parent is now expected to tell their kids "Riding a bike is
really dangerous. You are NOT allowed to ever ride without wearing a
helmet!"

Luckily, I sired a non-stupid child. My son understood that there were rules to follow and did not get hysterical about wearing a helmet or the risks of cycling. There were times when he did not wear a helmet -- like our usual store run when I don't wear a helmet either. He also went through a phase when he didn't wear a helmet sometimes because of high school hair issues.

Ah, the good old days: https://attheu.utah.edu/home-page/be...alt-lake-city/ At Specialized, I think he can get a helmet for like $1. He's seen his friends injured and has had spills of his own racing and riding, so he generally wears a helmet when he rides.


If my local experience is any indication, that means a bunch of parents
will say "Look, why don't you do something else instead?" And a bunch of
kids will say "Screw it, if I have to wear that dorky hat, I'm not riding."

And this is portrayed as benign?

Hasn't cut down or ridership in Portland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/407660 To you, it is an end-of-world issue. To the cycling population in PDX -- its meaningless. Kids are used to wearing helmets, and people over 16 do what they want.

Sorry, but "it hasn't cut down on ridership in Portland" is pure
speculation. I recognize that Portland has much more bicycling than
almost all U.S. cities. But that in itself is not proof that helmet laws
or promotions don't deter riding.

Logically, we know there are at least some kids who will choose not to
ride if forced to wear a helmet. Both our kids had that opinion at one
time or another, and I knew other kids with the same attitude. For the
policy to have no net effect, there would have to be other kids who say
"I never liked riding a bike, but now that I'm forced to wear a helmet,
I"m going to begin riding." I don't know any person who ever said that.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're braver than I am. I can tell that by
your tales of crashes.

Yes, like falling into a submerged pot hole and going OTB. I should have had Garmin sonar on my bike -- or going down on a patch of invisible black ice in front of my office. I've crashed riding at walking speed over a board-slat MUP bridge that was slimy (which now has indoor-outdoor carpet on it). This was ordinary riding/commuting and not crazy risk taking.

Jay, do you think I've never ridden below freezing? Do you think I never
rode on bridges or causeways with slippery wood surfaces? Do you think
we don't have potholes?

Let's put it this way, for the last 36 years, I've ridden half the year on wet pavement or some other form of H2O, and I ride on average five or six days a week. I seriously doubt you have spent a fraction of the time I have in low traction conditions. How many times do you ride down a road covered in a sheet of water? Tell me, how would you have avoided an unseen submerged pot hole? The magical Frank third-eye-o-vision? I was position one for godssake!

Look at your topography. Flat. The highest point in the state is like 1,500 feet with an elevation change from Youngstown of like 380 feet. I do 100 feet more than that just coming home from work on my second-flattest route -- more than three times that if I go home through the hills. Do you see any descending riding around your village? This standard route into work (today) is like a ski run on broken pavement. https://tinyurl.com/r53f5pu

And when was the last time you had to dodge some idiot on an eScooter or a ride in a congested city with trains, buses, streetcars, pedestrians, etc., etc.? Not that it is danger-danger (!) here in PDX, but its not your village. With that said, I know for a fact you don't experience the same danger from other cyclists as I do, which is reason enough to wear a helmet -- and maybe body armor.

Fun fact: About three years ago the mayor of our village was lobbying
for a new village levy, to be devoted entirely to road paving, because
so many village streets were in terrible shape. Guess which street he
chose to pose on, for the newspaper photo?

He chose my street, which he apparently considered the most dramatic
photo of potholes and patches. And it worked! The levy passed.

Now guess which was the first street to get paved.

OK, that's not fair, so I'll tell you. It was the street the mayor lives
on. My street was not the second. Nor the third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
I don't know where the count is now, but our street still looks exactly
the same. And until about three weeks ago, it included a pothole about
one foot by 18 inches, and maybe five inches deep. I had to avoid it
every time I turned into our street, either by car or by bike, whether
wet or dry.

In any case, I deal with these things, and somehow I don't fall. Perhaps
I'm more afraid of falling than you are.

I suspect you have far less exposure to exactly the conditions that caused my head strikes.

You mentioned equipment failure possibly causing a fall. Well, I've broken probably seven cranks, two pedals, seat post, handle bars (that's an eye opener), multiple frames and never crashed. All my broken cranks were riding out of the saddle and two failed while sprinting up a hill next to traffic. I'm not sure, though, whether I will be so lucky the next time I snap a crank. Nothing is a given as one gets older.


It hasn't caused me any emotional distress, unlike some.

Apparently it doesn't cause you intellectual distress either.

Nope. My helmets have paid off. It's the intellectually right move for me. Maybe not for you.

Apparently it's not the right move for me, since I've never needed one
in over 45 years of avid adult riding.

My intellectual distress is with the propaganda that always accompanies
helmet promotion. It's always either implied or stated that you NEED one
of these things, because riding a bike is a big injury risk. I remain
astonished that so many people, including so many avid cyclists, are so
taken in by the propaganda, and so ignorant of the relevant data.

Propaganda? What propaganda? Nobody I know wears a helmet because of propaganda. Most are racers or former racers and just accustomed to wearing a helmet and most also ride or race mountain bikes or CX and fall with some regularity, albeit usually minor falls.


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

Prosecuted? You men a ticket (that doesn't go against your license and can't be used for rating your insurnce)?

Are you implying that's no trouble at all, and people shouldn't fuss
about it?

No more than they should fuss about the ten-bazillion other things for which you can get a ticket from a municipality. We were talking about the local Washington MHLs -- which are ordinances and not state laws.

Whatever. It does bother me that an activity that is beneficial to the
individual and beneficial to society is ladened with senseless laws,
ordinances, or whatever you call the regulations.

If there were ordinances saying you can't have your porch light on
during daylight, or your car must be red, or you're not allowed to put a
sign in your yard, I'd think those were stupid too. But bicycling is
rather more important to me; hence I give more attention to stupid
bicycle regulations. (We can talk about AFRAP laws again if you like.)

We don't have those ordinances here in PDX, but we do have the state MHL for kids under 16, which doesn't seem to be keeping kids off bikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4FO_9rKLO4 How are you doing there in helmet free Ohio?

You've got great promotion of bicycling. I think it's partly because of
a court case that mandated spending a certain percentage of
transportation funds on non-motorized transportation, no? ;-)

OTOH, there are other places that have bike mode shares that dwarf
Portland's. And they don't promote helmets at all, let alone mandate
them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVhYcJH_m5o See what Portland
could be if not for helmets?

OK, more seriously: There are many things that affect ridership.
Fashion, local culture, city density, traffic levels, trip distances,
climate, terrain, economy, privileges or penalties for motorists, etc.
But there's no way that helmet promotion or mandates are a positive
influence.

This is one of my nearby climbs with a typical Portland driver. You would wear a helmet, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fzwm4m3ZFI

Note at about 1:00 into the video, the driver is wearing a helmet. By
some of the bike helmet promotion logic, every motorist should strap on
a full face helmet before pulling out of the driveway.

"Racers wear a helmet, so you should too!"

Uh, no -- most drivers are not drifting up Rock Point which, in some places, just falls off a cliff.

But that _has_ been said about bicyclists! I've rebutted it in this
discussion group with references to NASCAR.

BTW, that descent on a bike is very helmet worthy, particularly on wet pavement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0

And I'm sure I would descend much more slowly and cautiously than you.

On an off camber turn with oil or ice, you can crash going two miles and hour. The good part is you just slide down the bank. I take this corner at walking speed in the rain: https://tinyurl.com/t4uccwn

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, I have no doubt you could leave me behind at any moment if we were
to ride together, and I don't doubt that would have always been true,
even when I was at my strongest. I'm also immensely impressed by your
consistent riding in conditions I would usually avoid. Seriously, that's
all very admirable.

But that doesn't disprove my point: I seem to be much more cautious than
you. As an example, it's below freezing here now, and last night the
side streets were snowy. If I were to ride to some store, I would A)
definitely choose one of my bikes with flat pedals, and B) literally
creep through the turns. As I did that, I'd be ready to put down a foot
in an instant.

Another example is riding in the rain. You do it consistently, which is
pretty much a requirement for Portland. I dislike it and usually try to
avoid it, but still, cumulatively I've ridden thousands of miles in the
rain. I've never gone down from a water filled pothole (or any pothole)
even though we may be the pothole capitol of the nation.

I don't think this is a difference in bike handling skills or knowledge.
I think I'm just more worried about crashing, so I pay more attention to
the road surface. (My wife often praises scenery or flower goardens or
architecture from the back seat of the tandem. I snark "Yeah, you get to
look at scenery. I get to watch for potholes.")

It's not that I ride (or rode) terribly slowly. 30 mph was quite normal
on a downhill on my way to work. 35 is still not uncommon on
recreational rides. I've broken 40 more times than I can count, and I
still feel miffed that my all time record speed, 54 mph, was limited
because of a car in front of me. And if you want to check elevation
changes, look south to the Ohio River and West Virginia, where I led an
annual club ride and did solo tours. Look at the Appalachian Mountains,
not to mention the Rockies. I've done both. Check percent grades in
nearby western Pennsylvania. Look at Pittsburgh.

All that stuff has been done without once needing helmet protection.
That's just fact. And if I started crashing and coming close to bonking
my head, I'd sooner change my behavior than put my hope in a foam cap.

BTW, you said "Nobody I know wears a helmet because of propaganda. Most
are racers or former racers and just accustomed to wearing a helmet and
most also ride or race mountain bikes or CX and fall with some
regularity, albeit usually minor falls."

I absolutely do not believe your first sentence there. There must be
dozens of people you know who went into a store to buy their first adult
bike, and immediately bought a helmet without a bit of thought - perhaps
in response to a sales guy's "Of course, you'll need a helmet." The
propaganda's been out for decades: "Riding a bike is a big risk for
brain injury. It doesn't matter how slow you ride or how careful you
are, you must wear a helmet EVERY TIME you ride a bicycle."

There are very, very few Americans who have not encountered that
message, either explicitly or implicitly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/21/2020 8:08 AM, sms wrote:

For children, the compulsory helmet laws probably increase cycling in my
area. Parents have this idea that all that's necessary to keep their
child safe while cycling is for them to wear a helmet (often
incorrectly). This leads to the children being allowed to cycle...

Absolute nonsense!

There's plenty of data showing drops in bicycling upon imposition of
MHLs. Do you have _any_ data showing an increase in cycling caused by a
MHL? I've never, ever heard of such a thing. It's another Scharf fantasy.
Voluntary helmet usage among adults is so high in this area, and I
suspect in Portland, that there's no point in passing more laws that
would be unlikely to be enforced anyway. If an adult chooses to not wear
a helmet that's their decision and they accept the consequences should
they be in a head impact crash.

There's good evidence that Mandatory Helmet Laws are enforced
selectively. It's routine that the majority of tickets go to minorities,
with ticket counts dominated by just a few cops. For example, see
"Minority kids got most of the tickets" at
https://bicycleaustin.info/laws/helmet-laws-bad.html

Some of this may be due to the fact that minorities tend to have a
harder time affording helmets. But its also very likely that some cops
use the lack of a helmet as an excuse to flex their cop muscles. It's
too bad they won't give similar attention to things like wrong way
riding, or riding a night without lights. (And I'm not generally against
cops, as Chalo is. But that sort of thing is just fact.)

(Yes, I know cheap helmets exist, but there are families that can't
spend more than $20 for a used bicycle. They're unlikely to spend half
that for an obviously useless helmet.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/21/2020 8:28 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

Personally I doubt that the benefits of helmets outweigh the costs for
many, if not most cyclists,

How could you possibly calculate this?

Even if you could know what the average cost per helmet is, you'd also
have to be able to calculate the savings in medical costs that resulted
from the reduction or prevention of injuries, and even the decrease or
increase in future earnings of non-helmet wearers versus helmet wearers.

Even then, if the cost of helmets exceeded the cost of medical care and
lost earnings it would still not be relevant to individual cyclists
whose choice to wear a helmet or not is not based on the cost of a
helmet versus the costs they would incur should they be involved in a
head impact crash.

On 1/21/2020 1:55 AM, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:05:10 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

--

I always wear a helmet when on the bike, and aggressively argue back at anyone who says they shouldn't be mandatory for all ages.

.... thereby disproving the claim "Nobody is arguing for Mandatory Helmet
Laws."

And it's very probable that others here would secretly vote for MHLs if
given the chance. You know the suspects.

Twice, I would have been dead if not for wearing a helmet when I crashed on a bike.

Ah, yes, isn't faith a beautiful thing? A tiny bit of faith can overcome
a mountain of evidence!

--
- Frank Krygowski

with Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:51:25 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with Jeff Liebermann wrote:

So, what is an RBT reading geek to do? If helmets are not going to
disappear, and many people seem to want helmets, then at least make
them better, more functional, more usable, cheaper, and in this
case, less dangerous to small children. Minor tweaks to the design
of a chin strap are not going to affect global use and sales of
helmets, but it might save the lives of a few kids.
No way. Changes as such would draw on profits.

I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate.

Please rest assured I enjoy your writings, no offence. But with this
one there's one little problem: there's no fast-release straps (for
kids or otherwise) in objective reality. Why so? Because profits?

*CUT*

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