#11
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Mark Leuck wrote: "DD" wrote in message ... So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot. Mr Sunset Lowracer got his name from a low racer made by a now dead company, you don't want to egg him on about it or he'll post that one picture over and over again Which reminds me, hey Tom don't you have any OTHER pictures of that bike? I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote: Butch wrote: For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to show you what to do only common sense. Then why doesn't the "common sense" factor into any improvement whatsoever in serious injury rates anywhere helmet wearing rates increase? It's common sense that that would surely happen if they improved matters, but they have a track record of doing *nothing*. To put it in simple terms "**** Happens", its your life, you know what it is worth. It certainly does. And it continues to happen wearing helmets, and there is no national population anywhere who have shown an improvement in their serious head injury rate from wearing cycle helmets. Speaking of **** and h*lm*ts, a h*lm*t with no vents could be a life saver: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/ae7f8b09b374d758?dmode=source&hl=en. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Butch wrote:
Ah yes statistics! I worked as an engineer for more than 30 years and I can tell you what we used to say about statistics. Figures lie and liars figure. Meaning of course that statistics are great if the data is great but that almost never happens. The data is there for all to see, so look at it yourself. The data that really sucks is the data that tells us how effective helmets are with figures like 85% effective... gathered from comparaing affluent kids riding in parks to poor kids on busy city streets and assuming all the difference comes from helmets! No one ever took data when my friend flipped his Gold Rush, no one ever got data when I fell in front of the VREX and no one took data when I watched an older man riding a diamond frame pull his handle bars off the bike and split his skull(no helmet). So the guy that split his skull just went home and didn't report it to anyone? Or he was jsut left at the roadside? Unlikely in the extreme, so I think people /did/ take some data. as well), that is why I wear a helmet, I don't care what you do but I do care when you try to give a novice cyclist misguided advice. But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth that population data does not show any noticable improvement in head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. I know where you're coming from, because it's exactly where I was coming from until about 3 or 4 years ago. I always wore a helmet on pretty much every cycle journey I made for over a decade, thinking it daft not to and irresponsible not to recommend them to others based on the assumption that they *must* make you safer. But responding to the same sort of points I'm making now, I figured if they really /do/ help it should be easy to demonstrate that, but the harder I've looked the more the case that they help has shown to be the sort of badly skewed research and statistical shenanigans I'm being accused of myself here, and the more the case that they really don't make any significant difference has stayed as a simple fact. I know helmets are not perfect, but in my opinion they are a lot better than nothing. So where is the data to show that? Beyond a couple of personal anecdotes with no control data. There is a lot of data about accident rates and helmet wearing rates, so it should be easy to find a demonstration of effectiveness if they are effective. I looked but I couldn't find it, I stopped wearing a helmet. If you can find something convincing I'll gladly go back to wearing it as I don't want to risk my life, but AFAICT I'm not at the moment, so I'll vote for comfort on every ride. Oh yes now I remember another time when I think my helmet saved me from injury, I fell when I was crossing a slippery section of black top (in humid weather here it sometimes collects some sort of slimy allgae or what ever) I slid for a long time fortunately my fairing took much of the skid my head first went up and I remember trying to stop it from coming down so I wouldn't hit the pavement, I could not do it, I did tuck my chin just a bit and hit the side of the helmet cracking it slightly. Of course, your head is both bigger and heavier when wearing a helmet, so you're much more likely to hit it in such an accident, and if you do hit it there'll be more leverage applied to your neck. None of those are Good Things. I lost a lot of skin and rode the rest of the way home with my bloody butt hanging out but I didn't hurt my head. Funny I couldn't find a single statistical data taker on the entire 46 mile trail that day. But your lack of appearance in ER will have gone towards an overall fall in injuries. So either everyone having these accidents is being balanced by ones where helmets make things worse, or you wouldn't have gone to ER anyway. I can tell you one thing its to late to put it on when you are sliding down that black top at 18 mph. And it's also too late to take it off if the extra size and weight make a difference to hitting your head at all... The simple fact reamins, increasing helmet wearing rates have not affected the serious head injury rates. I have asked myself how that can be so if helmets are as effective as is often made out, but cannot reconcile the two. The raw data is there for anyone to play with, and the analyses that tend to stand up are the ones that show nothing improves for serious injuries with helmets. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message oups.com... Mark Leuck wrote: "DD" wrote in message ... So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot. Mr Sunset Lowracer got his name from a low racer made by a now dead company, you don't want to egg him on about it or he'll post that one picture over and over again Which reminds me, hey Tom don't you have any OTHER pictures of that bike? I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels You could create a blog on Blogger and use a program called Hello to upload images, it's all free [1] [1] With some advertising somewhere I'm sure |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. www.flickr.com is free site on which you can post photos. Also very easy to use. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote: snip But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth that population data does not show any noticable improvement in head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of silence. I know where you're coming from, because it's exactly where I was coming from until about 3 or 4 years ago. I always wore a helmet on pretty much every cycle journey I made for over a decade, thinking it daft not to and irresponsible not to recommend them to others based on the assumption that they *must* make you safer. But responding to the same sort of points I'm making now, I figured if they really /do/ help it should be easy to demonstrate that, but the harder I've looked the more the case that they help has shown to be the sort of badly skewed research and statistical shenanigans I'm being accused of myself here, and the more the case that they really don't make any significant difference has stayed as a simple fact. I know helmets are not perfect, but in my opinion they are a lot better than nothing. So where is the data to show that? Beyond a couple of personal anecdotes with no control data. Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part, anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information. There is a lot of data about accident rates and helmet wearing rates, so it should be easy to find a demonstration of effectiveness if they are effective. I looked but I couldn't find it, I stopped wearing a helmet. If you can find something convincing I'll gladly go back to wearing it as I don't want to risk my life, but AFAICT I'm not at the moment, so I'll vote for comfort on every ride. Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it? But your lack of appearance in ER will have gone towards an overall fall in injuries. So either everyone having these accidents is being balanced by ones where helmets make things worse, or you wouldn't have gone to ER anyway. Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a report being filed. The simple fact reamins, increasing helmet wearing rates have not affected the serious head injury rates. I have asked myself how that can be so if helmets are as effective as is often made out, but cannot reconcile the two. The raw data is there for anyone to play with, and the analyses that tend to stand up are the ones that show nothing improves for serious injuries with helmets. Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it. jim |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:24:06 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote: wrote: You know, stats are very interesting, sorta like facts, one man's is another's lies. They can be like that when misused, but the thing about helmets is that if you turn a bunch of professional scientists with no vested interests in proving things one way or the other on the helmet data they tend to find a lot of holes in the "these really help!" case and nothing like so many problems in the "they don't actually do much" case. Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the situation would not be worse than it is? No. But nor can I say for certain the opposite. And nor can you. Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license. Are you opposed to my doing the same? What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to an ER for stitches at a minimum. Not really, you can't. Yes I can. The only thing that prevented my head from hitting the rock was the helmet because that was the initial point of impact. Why can I say that? A pointed rock PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is certainly tougher than my skin. But the helmet makes your head effectively bigger, so more likely to hit something like that rock to start with, and it affects the way you ride so you may not have had the accident at all if you hadn't been wearing it (sounds far fetched? Everyone knows seat belts improve your chances in a car, yet in the wake of compulsory seatbelt legislation in the UK the car occupant injury rates didn't move much but pedestrian and cyclist injuries increased noticably, thanks to all of theose "safer" car occupants driving worse thanks to being "safer"). BS, and you know it. Otherwise, use some aviation accident data to prove that the cost of lettuce didn't rise. The jury is out on the denisty of my skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound cleaning and stitching. Well, you have a factor there that doesn't bother me because the National Health Service didn't charge me a penny for the overnight stay with concussion I had after an accident (in which I was wearing a helmet, by the way: it fractured, and in brittle failure it only absorbs a fraction of what it should). Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself? If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW. Did he allow for the increased population that are riding bikes today, the advent of downhilling at breakneck speeds, increased (and more hostile) traffic on the roads? Looking at whole population figures over time, everything is taken into account because /all/ of the reported incidents are in there (and most serious incidents are reported). Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets? If not, he only taken a snap shot in time looking at the past - not into what is coming. Because the population figures deal with things over the period of the recorded data you can see clear trends. Since before helmets existed cyclist serious injuries have generally followed the pedestrian trrends very closely. They have continued to do that as helmets are increasingly used by cyclists with the peds being a useful unhelmeted control group. In countries with mandatory helmet laws the wearing rate has shot up from ~20% to nearly full compiance and done it in a very short space of time, yet there isn't so much as a noticable blip in the serious injury rate over the same period. How can that be, if they're effcetive in preventing serious injuries? The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a case about oranges and are remarkably without any data concerning less than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible. Any research can be skewed in any direction the researcher wants. But if it's published and open to criticism then it's clear to see. And what takes a lot of very bruising flak is the researcgh that says helmets are very effective, and questions from the more sceptical point of view have remained unsanswered. Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering about all the previous stuff that went through this process without detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too. merely forgetting to look at one variable can have the same effect - skewing. And this can be pointed out by anyone reading the research critically. I have. I know quite a few people who have who are better objective critics than me, and several of them have, like me, gone from the "it's daft not to wear one" stance to not bothering. It would not be in our interests to stop waering something we already own and were used to wearing if we didn't think the numbers stood up. See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled. Happens all the time. In terms of lesser cuts and bruises? Doesn't look like anyone is addressing that specifically. It's very difficult to because small injuries are very likely to be unreported. The data simply isn't good enough to stand up to analysis. Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries. Sure, my accident might not have killed me or brooken my skull (serious) were I without a helmet, but I do know that I did not have to go to the ER and based on the helmet damage and its relative strength compared to my scalp, I probably would have had to without a helmet. For small injuries I believe they can help. That's why I'll usually wear my helmet for mountain biking where the sort of low speed crash with no other vehicle involved that cycle helmets are *designed* for is quite likely. But on the road I'm not likely to have that sort of accident and bang my head, against which if I waer a helmet I can guarantee I will have reduced comfort every time I climb on the bike. I ride a 'bent for comfort, so why put a foam box on my head to ruin things? Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or they don't. Which is it? You've been denigrtating jelmets throughout all your posts to this point??? And there is the rub of a shortsightedness in the research - it cannot allow for lesser accidents that do not require hospital reports (serious). It cannot track or effectively report the impacts of accidents (with or without helmets) where the injury did not require a hospital visit. How many of them would have gone from a banged head with a helmet to an ER visit without a helmet? That data is totally missing. And that is some very pertinent data. The number of visits that have fallen from seriious to not be worth bothering about /will/ appear in the form of a drop of total serious injuries, unless the rate at which that happens is /exactly/ compensated for by more serious injuries from another cause that doesn't affect the control data group of pedestrains, who are just as at risk from worsening driving as cyclists (and we have decades of numbers to show that to be true). Not true. That is an ASSumption. BTW, don't ever denigrate anecdotal evidence. It means little in isolation, but in aggregate, points to areas where deeper research is needed. In aggregate is *exactly* what the whole population data is. That is what I'm looking at, hundreds of thousands of data points, rather than one or two. But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or thousands do they not? It is like that fleeting warning that lets you know there are more serious matters coming. But the aggregate data tells us we're actually remarkably safe. Per unit distance safer than being a pedestrian in the UK. So if I cycle to work rather than walk I'm less likely to be involved in a RTA, so why wouldn't you think I should wear a helmet if I walk? Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions. Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . . Irrelevant. Walking, or taking a shower for that matter, is not considered as being a hazardous activity; riding in traffic or downhilling are. You are mixing apples and oranges to make your case. But walking *is* a comparably hazardous activity. We know this because of the aggregate population data. It may not be /considered/ as hazardous but this is why you need to look at hard numbers rather than make "common sense" assumptions. Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare to cycling in any form. I've walked for most of my 60 years and have walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two. Cycling has caused torn calf muscle, broken collar bone and torn rotator cuff from three separate incidents. Only the collar bone accidnet caused a hospital visit and fortunately, I was wearing my helmet (had no choice really, required for the ride) and it sucked up that rock. Downhilling is certainly a different matter. I wouldn't try it anyway, if you did persuade me there's no way I'd do it without a lid. But downhilling has no more to do with cycling in traffic than international rally driving has to do with commuting to work by car. Rally drivers wear 5 point harnesses, flameproof suits and helmets. Commuter drivers don't. Guess you should come on over here and drive out freeways. Might give you an entirely new perspective on this. ;- jim |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them.
Good advice from others on the photos. If you don't want to open new accounts, the easiest way to post the odd photo or two on the web (IMO) is http://tinypic.com/ You don't need to register or do anything special--just upload it from your desktop. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
wrote:
It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen than serious. Certainly "less than serious" accidents happen, but by their very nature they aren't serious. I've banged my head a few times and drawn blood doing housework, I'm not alone in that. I don't feel the need for a hlemt doing it though, and I doubt you do either. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? If there were a significant number of those then there would be a drop in the overall figures of serious injuries, but there aren't. Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of silence. They don't exist because they don't get to ER rooms. But they don't get into the serious figures which they would have done otherwise, and the serious head injury rates would have gone down accordingly. But they haven't. Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part, anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information. See above. For non-serious injuries they amount to basically discomfort, /if/ I have one. A helmet means discomfort on 100% of trips. Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it? Why haven't I done what? Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a report being filed. But if they meant a serious injury was /avoided/ then the annual rate of serious injuries would be coming down, and would show a better trend than that for pedestrians who have historically matched cyclist trends for years since before helmets were introduced. This hasn't happened. Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it. No I'm not. You read through the work at www.cyclehelmets.org and pick the real holes in it. It's fully referenced so you can get back to the sources. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|