|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sornson wrote: wrote: Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent. Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in those two sentences. Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more rare than that? Let's give an example. Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half million miles of riding. Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury per two million miles of recumbent riding. I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately). Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of 1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States - Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a "serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious" was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches. Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms. To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the "moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6% were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half million miles, on average. IOW, vanishingly rare. (You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to, for you.) Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me, people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_ the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_ vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the 1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s... - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack wrote: I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen; I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine. It's quite literally not my problem. What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced? Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet? Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is *yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact that they could. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote: wrote: How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in helmets? How is that logical? It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding with a helmet. Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without helmets! There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk. http://www.thudguard.com/ Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed! - Frank Krygowski |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Werehatrack wrote: On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, wrote: .. Helmet manufacturers are constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification tests. Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not, but... First, the term "anti-helmet zealot" makes little sense. People who argue as helmet skeptics are actually arguing for no change in the norm. IOW, it's the people who promote helmets that want to change others' habits - by rule or by law, if necessary. A person who says "Wait, we can leave it as it is" can hardly be called a zealot! I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused. I'm not positive the helmet is mechanically responsible for providing _less_ protection in many crashes. I'm quite confident that helmets prevent many inconsequential injuries, just as cycling gloves probably do. But there is the possibility of suffering a grazing blow to a helmet that would be a complete miss without one - and such a grazing blow may cause rotational acceleration of the head and brain tissue. I think what's much more likely is this: People hear "85% reduction in head injuries." They put on a helmet and feel nearly 100% protected (since nobody seems aware that head injuries are actually a tiny portion of cycling injuries, as uncommon as they are). They go out and ride in a location, or manner, that they otherwise wouldn't. And their increase in risk outstrips what's actually the very, very modest protective capacity of the foam hat. Keep in mind, _something_ must be going on. Again, the large population data shows an increase in cycling head injuries as helmet use goes up. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html for one mention of that fact. Data from Australia, under universal mandatory helmet laws, shows the same trend. I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen; I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine. It's quite literally not my problem. And you're welcome to wear one. In fact, I invite you to extend your logic beyond cycling! After all, when _do_ you "know what's going to happen"? Surely you realize that cycling is not even on the map for causing serious head injuries, right? Why not wear a helmet for all activities that cause head injuries? The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk. And of course, they've never given you correct numbers in proper context to prove that. Nor have you looked for them. You've believed the hype, so you treat cycling as if it's a special danger. If you didn't think cycling caused a special danger, you wouldn't think a special hat was necessary. - Frank Krygowski |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced? Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet? Good question. I know of one instance where a guy's helmet was stolen in the middle of a bike tour. He rode on. Are there people here who would actually stop riding? - Frank Krygowski |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Werehatrack wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote: Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club rides? How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this requirement? By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with. :-) By telling the unhelmeted cyclist "You are not allowed to ride on this public road, because we're riding on it, and we want you to wear a helmet"?? Our club once supported a charity ride by working booths, helping with lunch, etc. My best frined and I were driving sag. Helmets were mandatory. Sure enough, we came upon a guy out at about the 30 mile mark, riding alone, ride number visible, helmet strapped to his rear rack. We pulled up alongside and said "Um, you're supposed to have your helmet on, you know." He said something like "Yeah, I know." We looked at each other and shrugged. What could we do? Tell him to get off the public road? Tell him not to turn in the money he'd collected for the charity? Tell his mommy? What I actually did was to tell my friend "Well, it's a dumb rule anyway." And we drove on. Oh, and BTW, that incident also proves that there must be _some_ detriment to wearing a helmet. If that guy experienced no detriment, he wouldn't have bothered to take it off and strap it on his rear rack. I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven. What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that you take it up with them. Here is the release form requested by the underwriters of the League of American Bicyclists' event insurance. http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf You'll note it does not mention helmets at all, let alone require them. Apparently, those professionals who made the decision on liability costs disagreed with _your_ analysis - even though they didn't have to bear the cost of the helmets! - Frank Krygowski |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Werehatrack wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced? Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet? Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's irrelevant anyway. I think it's relevant, even though you obviously don't want to answer. It sounds to me like in at least some circumstances, you'd call for a ride home. Am I wrong? - Frank Krygowski |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Werehatrack wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote: tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of tyranny obtains. The case for helmets is not proven. Demanding that I buy and wear one is tyranny according to the definition. liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from compulsion or constraint in willing. Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations. Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem. Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your* arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events, you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance. The economic effect? How much? You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not, that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you can't accept that, it's *your* problem. No my problem is a majority so insecure that they impose their beliefs. I do not demand that a club change its charter so that they may have the honor of my membership. Obviously they made their choice and do not want me. I ask serious questions. The benefit of helmets is not proven; the majority acts as if it is, and apply pressure to those who demur. One who does not wear a bicycle helmet does not infringe upon the liberty of others. This is your problem because erosion of liberty is everyone's problem. -- Michael Press |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|