Extended stems

!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:38:50 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the
consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence
that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle
accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm
not wearing one is just plain nonsense.

Oh, there is a wealth of correlational evidence that helmets do, in
fact, afford protection. The fact that *experimental* studies cannot
be done doesn't mean that there's no evidence. Thompson, et.al. was
credible evidence... they just tried to go too far and claimed
causality, leading some to dismiss the entire study.

Has it ever been proven that smoking causes health problems. (Hint:
NO.) It there credible evidence that smoking is linked to health
problems? You have a very similar issue here.

It's none of my business whether or not you wear a helmet until you
expect me to assume liability for your head. If you're willing to
shoulder your own risk, then go (helmetless) in peace.

I hope you wear a helmet when walking, gardening, bathing, climbing
stairs and riding in motorized transport, where the risk of head injury
is more severe than cycling, if you expect your insurance to cover head
injuries without inflating the rates of others.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon.

!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote:

Not that I'm not making a case for or against helmets -- I've long
since decided that's a religious matter best left to private
conscience -- but that I'm discussion the methodology of this ongoing
and unnecessarily heated polemic, the balance of argument and proof in
it.

Well, last Thursday, while under sharp acceleration on a new tandem,
we suffered a structural failure. We did not have time to repent. We
both augured into the pavement; my wife (60 years old) hit her head
hard on the left temple.

Her helmet absorbed the impact, breaking as it was designed to do.

Nope, that is not how a helmet is designed to function. If the helmet
does NOT remain otherwise intact during foam compression, it has failed
to absorb much energy.

She was knocked unconscious for a couple of minutes; however, she
suffered no head injury.

The fractured helmet merely worked as a bump and scrap protector. A
heavy wool stocking cap would have done the same.

I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was
there; I saw it happen.

False conclusion - the broken helmet absorbed relatively little energy.

And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. Everyone else is going to hell.

(AMEN!)

We're already there.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon.

On 14 July, 04:04, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:39:45 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

So let me see if I understand: if I shoot you and you're not wearing a
bullet-proof vest, at least some of the liability is yours?

If I'm strolling downrange where bullets are common, then, yes. *If
you commit a crime, then we're talking about something different.

Golly, y'all really *do* "froth at the mouth", don't you?

Lemme sum up:

I doubt that some "judge in the UK" ruled contributary negligence. *I
don't think we're there yet; however, I believe in the idea. *The
problem is that judges are usually lawyers and no lawyer will act
against the best interests of the Bar in general. *Such a ruling would
reduce motorists' liability and promote the idea of personal
responsibility. *If it does happen, it will signal a sea change in
many more areas than bicycle helmets, I say.

Jones


I remember this. These are my words. It went something like: It has
to be shown (in court) that wearing of an approved helmet would have
reduced injury for this event and the cyclist was contributary to the
event. An award would be reduced according to degree of
responsibility placed on cyclist and the proven reduction in injury.

No such case has had this reduction applied. The defendant would have
to establish the cyclist's hand in his injuries. The defendant has to
show a reduction in injury was certain. The costs incurred to prove
injury reduction (if a helmet had been worn) in each case would likely
outweigh any savings unless the cyclist was almost completely
responsible for the incident which led to his injuries.

Remember that for the minor injuries a helmet could be 'proved' to
reduce, the larger award for shock would remain unaffected and totally
dwarf the reduction.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:04:35 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:39:45 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

So let me see if I understand: if I shoot you and you're not wearing a
bullet-proof vest, at least some of the liability is yours?

If I'm strolling downrange where bullets are common, then, yes. If
you commit a crime, then we're talking about something different.

I note you didn't answer any of my other questions about similar
scenarios involving accidents while walking, or being in a car.

Here they are again (it's your perogative to ignore them, but they do
seem to poke holes in your absurd theory....):

What about if I'm driving a car and hit you when you're walking on the
sidewalk? That happens all the time -- is some of the liability for
the injury yours?

What if I'm driving and you're sitting in the back seat of a car and
injure your head? Should you have been wearing a helmet? What if
you're in a car that doesn't have side curtain airbags and I hit your
car with mine, from the side? Is some of the liability yours?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:06:43 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
°_° wrote:

I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was
there; I saw it happen.

False conclusion - the broken helmet absorbed relatively little energy.

You may believe as your prejudices dictate. It is not important to me
to convert you to my beliefs. You weren't there; I was.

I'll leave it at that.

Jones

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

I note you didn't answer any of my other questions...

Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

Jones

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:13:00 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

I note you didn't answer any of my other questions...

Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

Nice dodge attempt.

You're under no "obligation" to answer my question, but if you can't
answer my questions it surely undercuts your earlier assertion.

My questions are for analogous situations to the one in which you
claim a person not wearing a helmet on a bike is somehow partially
liable to damages he/she gets simply due to the fact that he/she is
not wearing a helmet.

If your claim is true, it should hold up in similar situations
involving other types of activities and injuries. So here are the
questions for you again:

What about if I'm driving a car and hit you when you're walking on the
sidewalk? That happens all the time -- is some of the liability for
the injury yours?

What if I'm driving and you're sitting in the back seat of a car and
injure your head? Should you have been wearing a helmet? What if
you're in a car that doesn't have side curtain airbags and I hit your
car with mine, from the side? Is some of the liability yours?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:13:00 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

I note you didn't answer any of my other questions...

Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

PS -- I really have to laugh when someone conspicuously avoids a very
simple and relevant question that points up their dopiness.

Hahahahahahah

Thanks for the chuckle.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

Nice dodge attempt.

No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. I have seen
*that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long
string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all
of them. If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more
brainless questions.

It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept
responsibility for our own actions. If I smoke and the result is poor
health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any
way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. It
can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that
prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I
knowingly contributed to my own issues.

That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking
about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. I'm not going to try to
make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK?

Jones

On Jul 13, 8:16*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 13, 6:35*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jul 13, 2:39*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 13, 12:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ah, there is the problem! *With eggs in corrugated boxes, you get
serious egg risk-compensation. *

OK, Jay, you've been harping on risk compensation.

1) *Does this mean you don't believe such a thing exists?

2) *Have you read the book _Risk_ by John Adams?

I'm sure it exists.

If that's the case, you might stop mocking the concept. *And read that
book. *There's much to learn. *More than you seem to think.

I'm not mocking the concept. I don't think it has anything to do with
the behavior of ordinary cyclists who are hit by cars or who encounter
routine hazards.

*My ski bindings, bicycle brakes, studded bike
(and car) tires, HID lights -- -- they all result in risk compensation.
Would I not use them? *No. *I just have to know they have limits,
which I do. *Same goes with my helmet.

I think this is a major part of the problem: *Helmet promoters have
done all they can to tell the public that the same does NOT go for
bike helmets. *Or rather, to minimize their colossal limitations.
That's the very reason for that most frequent claim, that bike helmets
"reduce head injuries by [up to] 85%." *They recognize that most
people hear that and think "Almost 100%!"

Again, during my state's first attempt at a MHL, the local helmet
queen said "Frank! *85%! *It's so simple!!" *It took me a year to
convince her that there was anything more to bicycle safety.

Who is talking MHLs? I never heard the 85% number until I read the
Thompson study in connection with a case I was defending. The notion
that ordinary cyclists rely on these statistics is unfounded.

Also, my accident-related head injuries have not occurred while I was
taking risks, unless you consider riding home on a rutted road in the
dark with bright headlights an unreasonable risk or falling on ice or
getting hit by a car that violated my right of way. *I don't think
that most head injuries occur on a bike during risky activity unless,
again, you think that riding on a city street is risky.

sigh *And the same can be said for head injuries incurred during
walking, unless you consider using a crosswalk is risky. *Ditto for
motoring, unless you consider driving on city streets risky. *Or
walking around the house, unless you consider rugs and stairs risky...
and so on.

Here's that pie chart of causes of head injuries, once again.http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm
And remember that for fatalities (which are used for most helmet
promotion, it seems) cycling is an even smaller percentage of the
total.

Now why is it that people advocate helmets (almost) only for
bicycling? *Why is it that bicycling gets all the "Danger! Danger!
THIS is what COULD happen!!!" treatment? *Again, there's no particular
"per-hour" justification. *There's no particular "cost to society"
justification. *From what I've been able to tell, after much digging,
there's merely lots of sophisticated salesmanship plus even more
gullibility.

You keep missing the point: personal risk factors justify helmet use
by many cyclists, including me. You want every decision to turn on
population studies, which is fine for making public health decisions
but not for many personal decisions. But when confronted with
personal risk, you then call it "risk compensation" or claim that
people are acting unreasonably if they "need" a helmet. I was not
taking any unusual risks at any time I struck my head. I fear other
injuries too much to take unreasonable risks at my age.


I was on MtHood last week picking up my son from mogul camp, and I
talked to a mother whose young daughter (former national GS champ)
went off in to the rocks on Palmer and avoided more serious injury
because she had a race helmet and CF shin guards (both were perforated
by the rocks). I suppose I could have told her that summer skiing is
really risky and that her daughter should quit -- or that she
shouldn't wear a helmet because it makes her ski in to the rocks, or
something like that.

You mean you might tell her that her daughter should not slide down a
mountain at high speed with no brakes when there's a good chance that
she'll run out of clean snow and into a pile of rocks? *Gosh, why
would anybody even think such a thing?

You just wiped out the whole downhill bicycle racing scene. I will
inform them all to stay home then next time I see them and to quit
taking risks. Also, I am very equivocal on the use of helmets in
skiing because most accidents do not involve striking objects --
unless you are skiing a lot of trees or during the summer, when there
are rocks. Ski helmets are also heavier than bike helmets, and whip
lash type injuries are common. But for racers, tree skiers, park
skiers (with rails, tables, etc.) -- I think helmets are a good idea.
-- Jay Beattie.