if cycling could be

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
On 20 Apr 2006 10:48:49 -0700, "Len" wrote:


Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.

Get over it.
We've been ridiculed, harassed and attacked for over 130 years.

This is it! RBR is the anti-Christian repository for all the persecution
backlash of the last 130 years!

Happy to help,

JF

oh pa-leeese. I offered exactly as much data as the original troll I
responded to. Somebody called me a helmet nazi? That's a good one, and
based on considerable imaginary insight I might add.

I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
benefit against truly serious injuries.

Boy, it sure sounds like you've done exhaustive research into the situation.
ALL that evidence. Wow. Benefit to risk ratio. Hard to argue with THAT!

For me, 15 years riding motorbikes. 10 years riding mountain bikes. Enough
head hits during those years that if I hadn't been wearing a lid I'd be
drooling 24-7 these days instead of just on weekends. Two close doctor
friends who have cumulatively spent many years in ER's in Canada and the US.
They sure do have some interesting campfire stories regarding head injuries
related to motor and off-raod biking.

So my research is personal. So was my initial suggestion to the troll.

Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
the real world.

Yup, let's take a small, self selected group of people and smack 'em on the
head with a brick. Those not wearing helmets are free to argue the lack of
material benefits from wearing a lid.

OK, I'm bored. But boy that was fun.

wrote in message
oups.com...

GWood wrote:
Troll.

Please feel free to not wear a helmet. But ride really, really fast and
take chances. Hopefully you'll spare us the public burden of a long term
care facility.

So GWood seems to believe there is some connection between bicycling
without a helmet and "public burden of a long term care facility."

I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
benefit against truly serious injuries.

Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
the real world.

So, GWood, got data?

- Frank Krygowski

On 21 Apr 2006 18:47:38 -0700, "Scott"
wrote:

Excellent question. Nothing worse than arguing with the 'converted'.
Anecdotal evidence is very persuasive in the minds of the fanatics.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:00:11 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

That means you Frank.
I don't wear a helmet and don't crash, but even if I did I would not be
a long time burden on society by living at taxpayer expense in a $4,000
a month 'Waiting to die' home.

Get real. I was controller of a group of those homes - prepared the
financial pro formas for case management among other things -, with
people ranging from mildly retarded to some propped up in motorized
wheelchairs with suck tubes to stay alive. There were more there from
burst aneurysms than accident. I'd worry more - from experience -
about high blood pressure and sedentary life style than about that
helmetless accident. In 45 years of riding and paying attention to
local accidents, I know of two head injuries that severe from riding a
bike, and one was wearing a helmet.

Feel free to go back to the helmet wars - I personally wear one, but
think it is anyone's choice. Helmet or not, I see a person on a bike
and generally that's a good thing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:00:11 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

That means you Frank.
I don't wear a helmet and don't crash, but even if I did I would not be
a long time burden on society by living at taxpayer expense in a $4,000
a month 'Waiting to die' home.

Get real. I was controller of a group of those homes - prepared the
financial pro formas for case management among other things -, with
people ranging from mildly retarded to some propped up in motorized
wheelchairs with suck tubes to stay alive. There were more there from
burst aneurysms than accident. I'd worry more - from experience -
about high blood pressure and sedentary life style than about that
helmetless accident. In 45 years of riding and paying attention to
local accidents, I know of two head injuries that severe from riding a
bike, and one was wearing a helmet.

Feel free to go back to the helmet wars - I personally wear one, but
think it is anyone's choice. Helmet or not, I see a person on a bike
and generally that's a good thing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I am not going back to the helmet wars. You have just agreed with me on
the major point of riding, that it keeps people from the problems of a
sedentary lifestyle. I am at that age where I see people, some friends
even, younger than me either dying or having major health problems from
lack of activity. This does not mean lack of cycling, just lack of
anything. One friend who was happy just to be a grandmother, and do
light housework only, along with being overweight and having diabetes,
died suddenly 2 years ago from a sudden lung infection. Had she been in
better shape from any kind of exercise and had a better immune system
she would probably still be here today. Another friend had to have a 5
way heart bypass at 49 due to his 10 hour days with a computer and no
exercise off work. I am pro exercise, and anti couch potato, it is that
simple.
Bill Baka

"Marianne Promberger" wrote in message
...
Josh Hassol ) wrote:

: I agree that the majority of non-cyclists or "casual" cyclists I know
: regard cycling on the road as inherently dangerous. I guess it never
: occurred to me that this attitude would be caused by (or influenced) by
: the perceived need to wear a helmet. Are they really thinking "I need
: to wear a helment, therefore cycling must be dangerous"? Or do they
: already view cycling as dangerous, and therefore decide to wear
: helmets.

[snip]

: Can you point me toward the most recent statistical
: studies of helmet use and head injury rates?

Be careful there Marianne. You'll make enemies of the helmet zealots if you
demonstrate that the numbers of cyclists are far more effective in reducing
cycling accidents (since drivers become used to cyclists and react properly)
than wearing helmets regardless.

The problem is that pushing helmets reduces the numbers of cyclists on the
road and reduced numbers of cyclists cause drivers to be less aware of them
which causes increased danger to individual cyclists. Pretty ugly spiral as
was shown in Australia when cycling dropped by 30% with helmet laws and
injuries and deaths only dropped a small percentage.

"Scott" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Len wrote:

Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...

One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.

I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).

He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
for the helmet".

Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
hype.

Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.

Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.

Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
saved your life."

I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
and not for lower ones.

The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
descending stairs, too.

If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.

And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
helmets inside cars?

- Frank Krygowski

Don't forget, we should wear helmets in the shower, too.

S.

p.s. Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
other injuries. Just not significantly effective against head
injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
as good public policy.

Actually Frank knows whereof he speaks. Airbags cause FATALITIES all the
time. Why do you think there's warnings that you MUST wear your seatbelts in
an airbag fitted auto? Most fatal head injuries in cars are from side
impacts and helmets are about twice as effective as airbags in side impacts
since they have to slow the airbag fills down to keep from blowing your head
off of your shoulders.

How many accidents are caused because women now have to put their children
in the back seat to protect them from being killed by airbags in accidents
and then keep turning around and looking at the kid when they're driving?

The "safety lobby" should probably be arrested.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Len wrote:
Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...

One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.

I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).

He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
for the helmet".
Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
hype.

Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.

Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.

Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
saved your life."

I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.
If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
and not for lower ones.

The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
descending stairs, too.

If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.

And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
helmets inside cars?

- Frank Krygowski
Don't forget, we should wear helmets in the shower, too.

S.

p.s. Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
other injuries. Just not significantly effective against head
injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
as good public policy.

Actually Frank knows whereof he speaks. Airbags cause FATALITIES all the
time. Why do you think there's warnings that you MUST wear your seatbelts in
an airbag fitted auto? Most fatal head injuries in cars are from side
impacts and helmets are about twice as effective as airbags in side impacts
since they have to slow the airbag fills down to keep from blowing your head
off of your shoulders.

How many accidents are caused because women now have to put their children
in the back seat to protect them from being killed by airbags in accidents
and then keep turning around and looking at the kid when they're driving?

The "safety lobby" should probably be arrested.


I have one to add to the fray which may well get me flamed, but here
goes. Way back in the 70's I was in a car on a freeway stuck in a
traffic jam caused by a car in a ditch. A tow truck had a cable
stretched across all lanes trying to pull the car back onto the road.
Along comes a cyclist with passenger who decides to speed between the
cars and get on with it, at quite a bit more than the 30 MPH between car
speed. He had a motorcycle helmet on as did his passenger but did not
see the cable and ran into it. The driver was beheaded and the
passenger, fortunately for him, was knocked off the bike by the impact
of the driver's head, but still hospitalized. That made quite a story in
the news, San Jose Mercury, and sort of unnerved me about my lane
splitting habits on my 750 Kawasaki 2 stroke 3 cylinder hot rod. Helmets
help, but some idiots are beyond all safety measures. This would only
apply to a people powered bike if you went heads up into a barbed wire
or something, but don't let a helmet give you false confidence either.
There are creative ways to die just waiting to get you.
Paying attention trumps helmets.
Bill Baka
True story, if you can get into the archives back then. It was highway
280 I think at the time. Some renaming has occurred since I lived down
there.

Drew wrote:
"iguana" wrote in message worked in preventing
injury so it should be reviewed, but the

Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.


OK. Lets stop expecting the goverment to do everything, and do it
wourselves...

http://www.russmo.com/05_09_20.html

I want the Feds to stay out of my life. They already have a stranglhold on
everything else....