Extended stems

On Jul 13, 10:50*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:09:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank



Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:07*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange

wrote:
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion.

Do you happen to have a citation on that? *Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. *My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. *I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.

Hmm. *So, to which activities should that idea apply?
Seehttp://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm

Remember there are far more pedestrians and motorists dying of fatal
head injuries than cyclists. *(Peds are supposedly far worse than
cyclists per mile or per hour.) *Also remember that in the US,
bicyclists are less than 1% of the fatal head injuries. *Do you plan
to persecute the other 99% of sufferers as well?

Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
injuries.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. *It does us no good to pretend it is.

I don't know where you come up with *these adsurd statements; however,
I am quite certain that *I* never uttered any of them.

??

Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

I got that absurd statement directly from your post. I merely asked
which activities you think that applies to.

So, care to give us the list? Or is it uniquely bicyclists (that are
just a couple percent of our nation's head injury problem ) that you'd
persecute that way?

*I asked about
"a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not
wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries" because
I have heard that before and believe it to be an urban myth. *

It's no urban myth. Try
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/30590/Ju...aring-a-helmet

or http://tinyurl.com/m59eov

Of course, the judge gave no indication that he would have ruled the
same way if it were a pedestrian victim. That's despite the similar
risk of serious head injuries for pedestrians.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however
I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free
country.


You said:

Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
injuries.

I didn't ever claim it was. You appear to be attributing that claim
to me and I never made it.

Jones

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:28:23 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie wrote:

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.

Well, last Thursday, we had a major component failure on a sharp
take-off with a new tandem. In that half second between the "SNAP"
and impact with the pavement, I assure you that I was *not*
calculating statistics... nor was I thinking, "I wish we weren't
wearing these silly helmets!"

That helmet saved my wife's life. Had we been attacked by a giant
squid or collided with a UFO, then the helmets wouldn't have helped
much, I guess.

Jones... who fights giant squids daily.

On Jul 14, 10:28*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

Hmm. Well, I'll admit it's not absolutely proven to be a major factor
in the observed failure of massive helmet use. But _something_ is
causing this failu

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

*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.

I mention MHLs for several reasons. One reason is that once such a
law is enacted and enforced, it acts as a pretty effective test of
helmet efficacy. Or, as it turns out, lack of efficacy.

I also mentioned a MHL because in that case, a woman who was president
of a Safe Kids chapter, and who was dedicated enough to travel three
hours to testify in favor of a MHL, got that dedication partly by
reading promotional literature that claimed "85%." She based most of
her argument on it. Obviously, at least _some_ citizens hear of the
85% number, whether or not you did. It is, after all, the most widely
quoted claim of helmet effectiveness. (If you don't believe that, I
suppose I could generate fifty or so citations of examples - but is
that _really_ necessary?)

And there's no doubt that the general public is convinced that a)
bicycling is very dangerous, and b) helmets are tremendously
effective. As it happens, I was at a meeting last night that included
a middle school principle. I'm known as a (or probably "the") local
bicycling expert; and he and I talked about some sort of bicycle
program at his school. When he asked what I'd say about helmets, I
said "Well, I'd probably avoid the topic, and concentrate on correct
riding." When he pressed "What if they asked?" I said "I'd probably
say not to trust the helmet - to ride as if you didn't have one on.
They really haven't been shown to do much good." His response? "Wow,
the parents really believe they do."

How did the parents get that idea? From reading studies of the actual
per-cyclist effect when almost all kids don helmets? No, because that
would tell them the benefit was zero. Instead, they get blurbs on the
internet, messages from Safe Kids, little articles in magazines and
the like that use the "85%" claim - a claim made in 1989 and AFAIK
never yet corroborated in the real world.

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.

Believe it or not, I don't try to talk people out of wearing helmets.
But isn't it amazing the number of people who get into this
discussion, which is replete with citations and links (at least, from
me), and who say "Yeah, well bicycling may not be dangerous on
average, but it's really dangerous for ME!" It's the other side of
Garrison Keillor's coin - "All of our danger is above average."

All I can say is I've ridden in Portland, where you live, many times.
(My daughter used to live there.) I've biked through on a coast-to-
coast ride, I've done the West Hills and the Columbia highway, I've
been all over the downtown, the alphabet streets, the Hawthorne area,
plus Hillsboro, Beaverton, Aloha, etc. and I don't think I've worn a
helmet once out there. Somehow I've survived.

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.

I'm not going to wipe out that scene. But is it not odd that we
admire people who will bomb down a rocky mountain at 60 mph on a
bicycle, yet we chastise people who ride around the block without a
helmet, or let their kids do the same?

I've mentioned this before, but John Ross wrote a book about risk
called "The Polar Bear Strategy." In it, he bragged about his
exploits, which included camping next to (potentially) man-eating
polar bears, and climbing snowy mountains where "one misstep" meant
certain death. Yet he expressed horror at people riding bikes in his
residential neighborhood without wearing helmets. Can anybody claim
such an attitude is reasonable?

People have been subjected to a couple decades of horror stories, of
all the terrible things that COULD happen while bicycling. Not while
walking, not while motoring, even though the risks are similar or
worse. And people have been flatly lied to, told that wearing the
funny hat would protect wonderfully against those horrible risks,
despite reams of evidence that they don't.

And now we get travesties like this: http://tinyurl.com/m59eov
But again, only for bicyclists. Really, why is that?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 14, 3:22*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

Yes, I said that. *I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however
I think it is negligent on your part not to. *

You said:

Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
injuries.

I didn't ever claim it was. *You appear to be attributing that claim
to me and I never made it.

OK, I'm glad you're not claiming bicycling is an unusual source of
serious head injuries.

I'm not glad, however, that you're arguing that someone is negligent
for choosing to omit an ineffective protective device for an activity
that doesn't need it any more than other common activities.

But perhaps I'm losing track of your argument. Since there's at least
some data showing pedestrians have worse risk of serious head injury,
do you also call unhelmeted pedestrian crash victims "negligent"? And
since seat belts and air bags are obviously not enough to stop the
fatal motorist head injuries (still the number one source in the US,
IIRC) do you think all those motorists are also negligent for omitting
helmets?

IOW, do you persecute only bicyclists?

And while we're at it, do you hold this attitude for only one
ineffective safety device? Or do you also scorn bicyclists who choose
to ride without tall safety flags and St. Christopher medals?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 14, 3:28*pm, !Jones wrote:

That helmet saved my wife's life.

Ah yes. There are countless "the helmet saved my life" stories.

Except the fatality count keeps not budging even as those stories keep
accumulating. Same for serious head injuries.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

It's too bad fragile styrofoam helmets are only an inch or two thick.
Obviously, if they were six inches thick, they would "save" a lot more
lives. For example, every time someone left one on by mistake while
they were getting into their car, they'd dent the styrofoam. Presto,
another life would be "saved"!!

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:28:41 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:28:23 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie wrote:

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.

Well, last Thursday, we had a major component failure on a sharp
take-off with a new tandem. In that half second between the "SNAP"
and impact with the pavement, I assure you that I was *not*
calculating statistics... nor was I thinking, "I wish we weren't
wearing these silly helmets!"

That helmet saved my wife's life. Had we been attacked by a giant
squid or collided with a UFO, then the helmets wouldn't have helped
much, I guess.

Jones... who fights giant squids daily.

Dear Jones,

A few photographs of the helmet would be interesting.

You can always put them up anonymously on www.tinypic.com and post the
link.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Jul 14, 12:44*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:28*am, Jay Beattie wrote:


snip

All I can say is I've ridden in Portland, where you live, many times.
(My daughter used to live there.) *I've biked through on a coast-to-
coast ride, I've done the West Hills and the Columbia highway, I've
been all over the downtown, the alphabet streets, the Hawthorne area,
plus Hillsboro, Beaverton, Aloha, etc. and I don't think I've worn a
helmet once out there. *Somehow I've survived.

Me, too -- although I have fallen on my head a few times. Isn't the
Gorge beatiful? It has to be one of the most beautiful places on
earth on a sunny day.

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.

I'm not going to wipe out that scene. *But is it not odd that we
admire people who will bomb down a rocky mountain at 60 mph on a
bicycle, yet we chastise people who ride around the block without a
helmet, or let their kids do the same?

With children, we do all possible to prevent them from being injured,
and we assume they are incapable of acting responsibly and preventing
injury, so we give them appropriate protective equipment. Whether
they need it is questionable many times, but the doubt always goes in
their favor.

As for adults, let me get my PhD in psychology and sociology, and I'll
report back with an answer as to why we admire risk takers. I do know
that a lot of the athletic risk takers are able to control or mitigate
their risk through preparation and appropriate protective gear --
which they should do. Other risk takers are simply suicidal. I think
those people fascinate us, but we do not necessarily admire them.
Grizzly Man comes to mind as well as that guy who liked to jump off
cliff faces with ordinary climibing rope (until it broke). -- Jay
Beattie.

On Jul 14, 4:21*am, !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.
She was knocked unconscious for a couple of minutes; however, she
suffered no head injury.

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

You don't need the resident RBT negativists to confirm an experience
like that.

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

You had to wait until you were sixty to discover that? I knew it
before I knew anything else, but then I was born a Calvinist, with my
place in Heaven reserved on conception.

(AMEN!)

Hallelujah, brother.

Jones

Jute

On Jul 14, 3:02*am, someone wrote:

Do not
subject the egg to unecessary thermal shock by refrigeration. *The
smallest amount of cider vinegar to help coagulate the white at simmer
point means the eggs incur less stress during cooking. *Careful
treatment of the egg before slaughter eliminates the bitterness caused
by shock response, so ensuring a sweet and delicate yolk.

You're a roundeye barbarian, Trevor, and a bleeding heart marshmallow
besides. Every good Chinese knows the puppy or kitten tastes better if
first tortured.