|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Don't we need Teflonâ„¢-coated bullets?
On 5/9/2011 4:02 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2011 15:54:02 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech SMS wrote: Most of us here have had them filtered out for so long that we only see their gems when a newbie falls into the trap of responding to them. There are. You should see ba.broadcast! For Usenet to retain any value at all you can't fall into the trap of letting those that get caught up in their own agenda dominate and destroy the group. You filter them out and you move on. You know, Mr. ... Scharf??? That's about the most intelligent posting I've seen yet. You see, I'm basically just on my way to Austrailia... kinda passing through, you know. I never said I was here to stay. This looks like a good time to seek my fortunes elsewhere. I think we've about beaten this dead horse into the ground... I doubt I have convinced anyone to wear a helmet; actually, I don't think I ever tried to do that. Bye. Cut and run! : Here, this is for you... :: What? A silver bullet? : Naah... some crap from a gumball machine; I don't need it. Hi-ho Silver... AWAY!!! Do let the door hit you on the arse. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/9/2011 9:17 AM, SMS wrote:
On 5/5/2011 6:15 PM, Tom Lake wrote: It's not a "fault" of the study any more than an inability to fly is a fault of a tractor. It's simply a property of that type of study; you start with existing data and study them. I'd bet half of the studies published on any topic use post facto data. I think you'll find that *all* helmet studies are thus. That doesn't make them flawed; they have their limitations; however, they're the best we've got or ever will have. It's a stronger design than a whole-pop because I can scale the results; whole-pops only apply locally. For vehicle crash-worthiness there are some tests that are designed to simulate a real accident with the use of crash test dummies. But of course what is also looked at is post facto data on accident data, comparing the use and non-use of safety equipment by accident victims. Be very careful about those people that misuse whole population studies with claims that they are inconclusive because out extenuating factors, because often those extenuating factors are things they made up out of thin air. For example, there is absolutely _no_ evidence that cycling rates fall after helmet laws are introduced, but that does not stop the birther-like claims that the only reason that whole population studies show a decrease in injuries and fatalities is that cycling rates went down. Of course first they started out denying any decrease, then when they couldn't deny it any longer they came up with a rationalization for it. This is covered in Myth 8 at http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/#TOC-Myth-8:-Studies-show-that-when-helm Before the proliferation of web sites where actual scientific and statistical data was available for all to see, Usenet had a lot more "helmet wars." Now, with the data readily available, you see just how furious people like Frank and Phil become when the facts don't agree with their agenda. The "Bicycle Helmet Myths and Facts" web site that I started as an effort to have a central repository for all the myths that the AHZs try to put out there, and the actual facts, has been a big help with reducing the helmet war threads. Someone, please direct Scharf to competent psychological help. He has lost touch with reality. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Does it ever end?
On 5/8/2011 8:27 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
[...] I'll bet you could fill a *book* with the stuff I don't know. And sticking just to the topic of bicycle foam hats! -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
It's worse than that - he's dead Jim!
On 5/9/2011 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...] Why only death statistics? The main reason is that they are kept very carefully. Another important reason is that there is little doubt or debate about whether a death has occurred.[...] Except for Elvis Presley. Or, on a more serious note, Usama bin Laden. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On 5/9/2011 12:35 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom considered Sun, 08 May 2011 20:21:05 -0500 the perfect time to write: [...] I once wrote a grant wherein we promoted helmets. So you were one of the stupid *******s that came up with that bull**** instead of something that might have actually made a difference, like subsidised cycle training for schoolkids.[...] The stupid *******s are offended at the comparison. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 10, 1:20*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: On May 10, 4:45*am, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: On May 9, 4:31*pm, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Not surprising. *We had over 100 years of bike racing without helmets, with fatal head injuries always being extremely rare. Think of the tens of millions of miles ridden in the Tour de France since its inception. *IIRC, there were a total of three deaths. *One was drug- induced heart failure. Fail. Stop spreading that rumor. The death had nothing to do with drugs. Unfortunately everybody says so. He died because the race organizers severely restricted the amount of water a racer could have, and the racer died from dehydration. Really? *That's the first time I've ever heard that version. *Can you give the source? Can you support your version? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson "Tom Simpson (30 November 1937–13 July 1967) was the most successful English road racing cyclist of the post-war years. He infamously died of exhaustion on the slopes of Mont Ventoux during the 13th stage of the Tour de France in 1967. The post mortem found that he had taken amphetamines and alcohol, a diuretic combination which proved fatal when combined with the heat, the hard climb of the Ventoux and a stomach complaint." This isn't a major point of mine either way. *He certainly didn't die of a head injury. Why doesn't the article mention the severe restriction on water intake imposed by the race organizers? I don't know. I've never seen an article that mentioned that. Have you got one? - Frank Krygowski |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson
"Tom Simpson (30 November 1937–13 July 1967) was the most successful English road racing cyclist of the post-war years. He infamously died of exhaustion on the slopes of Mont Ventoux during the 13th stage of the Tour de France in 1967. The post mortem found that he had taken amphetamines and alcohol, a diuretic combination which proved fatal when combined with the heat, the hard climb of the Ventoux and a stomach complaint." This isn't a major point of mine either way. He certainly didn't die of a head injury. Why doesn't the article mention the severe restriction on water intake imposed by the race organizers? The Wikipedia article does say: "Tour organisers limited each rider to four bottles (bidons) of water, about two litres - the effects of dehydration being poorly understood. During races, riders raided roadside bars for drinks, and filled their bottles from fountains." |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
In article ,
"Barry" wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson "Tom Simpson (30 November 1937ˆ13 July 1967) was the most successful English road racing cyclist of the post-war years. He infamously died of exhaustion on the slopes of Mont Ventoux during the 13th stage of the Tour de France in 1967. The post mortem found that he had taken amphetamines and alcohol, a diuretic combination which proved fatal when combined with the heat, the hard climb of the Ventoux and a stomach complaint." This isn't a major point of mine either way. He certainly didn't die of a head injury. Why doesn't the article mention the severe restriction on water intake imposed by the race organizers? The Wikipedia article does say: "Tour organisers limited each rider to four bottles (bidons) of water, about two litres - the effects of dehydration being poorly understood. During races, riders raided roadside bars for drinks, and filled their bottles from fountains." Even "the effects of dehydration being poorly understood" is white wash. The effects of dehydration have always been well understood, because people have always been dying from it. -- Michael Press |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 11, 6:21*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article , Even "the effects of dehydration being poorly understood" is white wash. The effects of dehydration have always been well understood, because people have always been dying from it. I feel I'm dying from it right now! Refill my glass of wine please.... JS. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 7, 3:21 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 7, 3:25 pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On May 7, 11:05 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: Ah, Stephen, still posting absolute lies! To review (not that it should be necessary): I did not begin by deciding I was against bike helmets. In fact, I was once in favor of bike helmets. I wore one for almost every ride, and advised others to do the same. I bought the line that bicycling was a significant source of serious head injury, and that helmets greatly reduced that risk. It was only after I began reading the research papers on the subject (both pro and con), and digging for data on comparative risk, that I changed my mind, based entirely on factual evidence. I found that the risk had been grossly exaggerated, the claims of efficacy wildly overstated, and the specifications and certification tests of bike helmets laughably inadequate. Populaiton studies say nothing about whether a helmet is a smart choice for an individual rider whose risk pattern may be different from the norm, e.g., someone who rides fast or rides off road or who rides in inclement weather including ice and snow or who rides in close proximity to large numbers of other riders. A person may perceive a risk that actually exists for him or her, and you cannot assume that a person is being hysterical or helmet whore or whatever without seeing that person's riding environment. There's some truth to that. If you'll notice, I generally talk about the low danger level of ordinary cycling. My riding tends to be reasonably cautious. That is, I've never been one for trying to see how fast I could take a curve. I've exceeded 50 mph only once on a bike. I long ago gave up really scary mountain biking. I seldom ride when roads are icy or really snowy. I watch pavement conditions like a hawk. I think the best chance of justifying bike helmet use, based on their specifications and on the likelihood of head impact, would be enthusiastic mountain biking (as opposed to just cruising in the woods). Second best would be track racing. The hills on Portland's west side when slicked down with winter rain could possibly be another; I won't pass judgment. I've ridden those only in dry weather. So how's your love life? ;-) I'm getting older every day, too, but seriously, dude - if that's how it was to Ride Bike, I wouldn't see the point in swinging my leg over the saddle in the first place. But I think it's obvious that the advice given by helmet promoters, that cyclists should wear a helmet "... every time they ride their bike..." is silly. The level of risk certainly doesn't justify that. And the measured results from decades of such promotion show that such advice, to the considerable degree it's been followed, hasn't worked to a detectable degree. I sure wish you'd take this argument to those who say, "cyclists should wear a helmet every time they ride their bike". Does Jay say that? Do I? No, we both merely say that - at least sometimes - we consider a helmet worthwhile protection. This is why population studies are meaningless to me in my personal decision making -- except in terms of my injury reduction expectations. I do not expect a helmet to save my life. However, helmets have proven benefit in reducing scalp injury, certain upper facial injuries and skull fractures, which are all costly to treat and worth avoiding -- particularly for me. It might be worth asking yourself whether you did ride, or would have ridden as you do, in 1973, before helmets were widely used. What would you have done differently? Know better than to bet my life on sanity, but in any case I do not wear a helmet to facilitate added risk (to mitigate some of it, maybe). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycles and exchange rates | thejdw | Unicycling | 12 | November 2nd 07 06:57 PM |
Tdf 'live' Heart rates | cupra | UK | 2 | July 18th 07 12:55 AM |
Pedaling rates | Ron Graham | UK | 17 | February 3rd 07 06:52 PM |
decrease of heart rates | le-sheq | Techniques | 4 | March 1st 06 12:33 AM |
Heart rates. | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 21st 06 08:45 PM |