Scientific American does bicycle helmets

Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web hehttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2-99DF-3594A60...
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

in message , Tom "Johnny
Sunset" Sherman ') wrote:

Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days.

And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
be clever enough to assemble them?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:



On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web hehttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2-99DF-3594A60...
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days.


Figures you would be the aforementioned "some idiot" to cross post to
URC.

Do you spit or swallow, Sherman?