Hard facts about helmets and safety?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:55:27
From:
Subject: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
(1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.

Thanks.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 14:46:46
From: Ken Bradley
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Sure! Helmets are a good idea to ware on any bike. I alway ware one. I
don't care if there is a law or not!
But! They get far to much attention, too many folks think thay are "the most
important safety item" NO! NOT HARDLY! SAFETY is pretty much about how you
ride! RIDE LIKE YOUR SCARED TO DEATH OF CARS and Stay Visible, don't sneek
around., Like in a door zone! I got "doored" once and my hat got a big dent!
Got a new one for $20!

<jacobson.avi@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157594127.045677.187090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
> entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
> not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
> to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
> right).
>
> He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
> helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
> believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
> objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
> trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
> he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
> accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
> RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
> the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.
>
> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
> (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
> consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
> risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
> as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
> trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
> whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.
>
> So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
> you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.
>
> Thanks.
>

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:25:52
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"Ken Bradley" <kengee@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:hNKdnSCtJq5XtrnYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sure! Helmets are a good idea to ware on any bike. I alway ware one. I
> don't care if there is a law or not!
> But! They get far to much attention, too many folks think thay are "the
> most important safety item" NO! NOT HARDLY! SAFETY is pretty much about
> how you ride! RIDE LIKE YOUR SCARED TO DEATH OF CARS and Stay Visible,
> don't sneek around., Like in a door zone! I got "doored" once and my hat
> got a big dent! Got a new one for $20!

In Colorado, we don't have Motorcycle Helmet requirements. I had a less
than 20mph accident where I was wearing a helmet. I hit helmet and shoulder
first. This is right up there with slipping in the shower accident. My
helmet was cracked all the way through (I did have a headache later) and
seperated my shoulder (I didn't feel the headache because that shoulder hid
the head pain for quite some time with it's own.). Had I not had the
helmet, I wouldn't be alive today. Even if there is no law, I will still
put one on when on the MC.

On the bike, you can still have a less than 20mph accident the same way.
Under the same situation the helmet would save ones life just not the rest
of the body (groan). Some think it's important to wear a helmet on a bike
and some don't. It's usually a personal, individual decision and arguing
about it is extremely stupid.

Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:03:07
From: gds
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> gds wrote:
> >

<big snip >>
> But it _is_ difficult to define "serious." The default used (but
> seldom stated) in most studies is "causing a trip to the ER." But that
> is weak, as well. Obviously, whether one goes to the ER depends
> largely on one's medical coverage. By that standard, prosperous
> professionals lucky enough to have excellent medical coverage are
> "seriously hurt" if they stove a finger and go in to make sure it's not
> broken; low-income kids with gushing blood might not be "seriously
> hurt" if their mother can somehow get the bleeding to stop before the
> next bus arrives in half an hour.

Agreed, and since "serious" "required" "trivial" and so on are defined
by the reporter it leads to huge problems of interpretation. There are
some very good studies of self reported data, but those studies ask the
reporter to use a study supplied defintion when reporting.

>
> There is an Abbreviated Injury Severity scale which could be used with
> reasonable accuracy. But of course, it's never applied to that
> low-income kid I mentioned, because he's never seen my medical
> personnel (and studies to record such info are rare). Still, as I
> pointed out in http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/answer5.htm,
> the vast majority of cyclists' ER-treated injuries are low level - AIS
> #1.

Sadly, most of the high cost care of ER's is for injuries that they
should never be bothered with. I think you will find that cycling and
non cycling injuries that present in ER's are mostly not appropriate.
That just raises the cost of care overall and creates some problems for
the very seriously injured that do present at the ER.

>
> Overall, I'm distressed by the modern tendency to find terrible danger
> in everything, despite the fact that we've eliminated so much danger
> from our daily lives. I believe it's at that point that the warnings
> are causing more damage (read, couch potato illnesses) than the
> activities in question.

Agreed! Given historical context very little is dangerous, at least
statistically. Even wars are now safe by historical standards. Without
getting into the politics or morality. The ~3000 deaths of US troops in
Iraq in three years looks pretty good if you compare it to 1) the civil
war 2) WWI 3)WWII 4) Korea 5) Viet Nam.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 20:17:14
From: Lori
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:
> Where are these peer reviewed massive population studies??? When a
> study looks at and reports rates....it is a far different thing than
> doing a prospective population study where you set the details of the
> study ahead of time.

The large population studies provide information on the benefits of
forcing cyclists to wear helmets. Cyclists who choose to wear helmets
usually take care to get a good fit and wear it correctly. Cyclists
who are forced to wear helmets probably take less care. There's also
other side effects from discouraging cycling, including reduced safety
in numbers and risk compensation.

> Again......the consensus is, that with the best designed studies to
> date, helmets seem to exert a substantially protective effect. That
> doesn't mean that they definitely do. All you can do is take the most
> objective view possible and sumize the research. When this is done,
> helmets seem to have a substantial effect.

This has to be put in context. Gloves prevent wounds to the hands.
For the same reason, helmets presumably prevent wounds to the head. In
the largest case-control study, 73% of head injuries did not involve
brain injury.

The benefits of helmets appeared to decrease with age. For example,
adult ( > 19 years ) helmet wearers had 37% fewer concussions or other
brain injuries. But cyclists not wearing helmets were 44% more likely
to have collided with motor vehicles, so you'd expect their head injury
rates to be somewhat higher, even if helmets had no effect.

Based on measurements of head accelerations (when dummies on bikes were
hit by mock vehicles), I'd conclude that that helmeted cyclists hit by
vehicles at 40 km/hr are likely to suffer worse head injuries than
non-helmeted cyclists hit by the same vehicles at 30 km/hr.

It's not what I would call a substantial benefit - far better to ride
as safely as possible. Many people think that most brain injuries are
caused by rotational accelerations and current bike helmet may be of no
benefit at all - the may even increase the risk.

> I study epidemiology. Reports of injury rates or studies that look at
> a group of people aren't that great. If you are just looking at
> hospital records there are a myriad of things that go unevaluated.
> There is sampling bias, confounding, response bias, etc. The best
> study you are going to get is probably a case control study (still
> flawed but better). When you look at those, they demonstrate a high
> level of protection.

Yes, but so did studies of hormone replacement therapy ... until the
results of randomised control trials were published.

> For the record, I am against helmet laws until the proof is more
> unequivocol. But don't pick one study and yield it like a blunt
> instrument. Don't just tell everyone what the research says without
> understanding it.

Helmet laws have to be evaluated by a different set of criteria. I
can't how any law can be justified unless the costs exceed the
benefits. In terms of money saved per helmet purchased the studies
show that helmets for motor vehicle occupants are far more cost
effective than helmets for cyclists. (See
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.06.007 )

The best think is to let cyclists make up their own minds. They are in
the best position to know their cycling environment and judge the
risks. Most cyclists would choose to wear a helmet for fast downhill
mountain biking, but think it unnecessary for a trip down a quiet
residential street to the corner shop.

For kids, parents have the final word. If the kid is happy to wear a
helmet, make sure that it doesn't encourage him or her to take
additional risks. If the kid is likely to cycle less by being forced
to wear a helmet, then it's probably better to for the kid to continue
cycling than get inadequate exercise.

Have fun and ride!!!

Date: 09 Sep 2006 11:40:24
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> > It's obvious that experience translates into safer cycling. Do
> > you deny this?
>
> Not at all. I agree that the typical 18-year-old (the OP's son) has a
> higher chance of a crash than, say, the typical 48-year-old cyclist.
> (Of course, that would also be true if we were comparing their
> racquetball playing.) I was merely noting your habitual scorn for
> Forester's ideas - except when you can bend them to match your own!

My scorn for Forester's ideas is not habitual. It is based on
familiarity with his ideas. But I am also capable of recognizing
his tremendous contribution to cycling in the US, and his
success at gathering the information that he went on to
misinterpret so badly. When he described the ski-slope
curve with experience on the x and accident rate on the y
he confirmed the hunches of well-traveled cyclists everywhere.

Rather than go on with this and watch in horror as you
twist like an insect on a pin trying to justify the highly
sought-after 'inuries-per-month' data, I'll take the day off
and offer readers links to our previous discussions which
occur every six months and which would be virtually
identical to this one, if it were to continue:

http://tinyurl.com/erxsm

In which I write:

"I don't understand or share your need to boil all
of this down to a single number which would
somehow magically describe in all its numerical
glory the Danger of Cycling. The reality of it
is not so complex that is evades description
by simple words: cycling is not a deadly
activity, on the other hand it has a noticeably
higher injury rate than other forms of
transportation. This is because cyclists
fall off their bikes as well collide with
other vehicles, or both at the same time.
Cyclists are relatively vulnerable to injury,
minor to serious, but they are in better
shape and having more fun than
everybody else. I don't see what's
so hard to accept about that."

And: "What you call 'putting fear into others' is
simply a stating of the facts. According to you
stating the facts about cycling injuries is
anti-cycling. It's a bizarre argument."

I think I'll just quote from old threads from now
on. It's much easier. This is sort of a Nietzschean
eternal recurrence thing we've got going here.

Robert

Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:58:40
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> It's obvious that experience translates into safer cycling. Do
> you deny this?

Not at all. I agree that the typical 18-year-old (the OP's son) has a
higher chance of a crash than, say, the typical 48-year-old cyclist.
(Of course, that would also be true if we were comparing their
racquetball playing.) I was merely noting your habitual scorn for
Forester's ideas - except when you can bend them to match your own!

> Do you think 'cycling is safe' and therefore your kids will be protected
> by the overall supposedly safe statistical level of cycling when
> they go out on the street?

Yes! Naturally, I taught them to ride properly. But I always assumed
that they would be safe when they rode their bikes around the
neighborhood, or a couple miles across town to visit friends, or many
miles to get to the metro park, or on organized century rides, or
touring in other countries, or coast-to-coast across the US.

And - son of a gun! - I was right. None of us has ever had anything
worse than a skinned knee, and even those were extremely rare. Just
like the data says!

> > > It would be difficult to design a more useless survey, wouldn't it?
> > > Obviously, such a survey can tell us nothing about the variable
> > > rates of injury among different activities until we know how much
> > > time the respondents spent doing those activities. If the 'cyclists'
> > > in the survey had only ridden a few hours that month then their
> > > injury rate would be colossal.
> >
> > And conversely, if the walkers had walked only a few hours, their
> > injury rate would have been worse. Now please explain why you assume
> > walkers typically exercise more hours than cyclists do?
>
> Why do you assume that I assume that? The point is you can't
> draw any conclusions about injury RATE (injuries/time) from a useless
> survey that makes no attempt to determine TIME spent in each
> activity (gds' point about self-reported injuries notwithstanding).

The term "injury rate" can have several meanings: injuries per hour
exposure (your "TIME"); injuries per mile; injuries per thousand
cyclists; injuries per thousand population; injuries per trip; and
injuries per month. I've seen all these in different studies.

This survey focused on the latter. I'm not claiming it gives the
definitive final answer on cycling's precise level of safety. But
since its numbers for cycling are significantly better than those for
walking, I _do_ think it gives strong inclination that cycling is safer
than fearmongers would have us believe!

I realize you reject this study completely. Given your dedication to
spreading fear, you've got only two choices: Reject the study
completely, or add "Walking is dangerous, too!" to your mantra.

(Frankly, I wonder why you don't do the latter. Isn't it as
ketable?)

>
> > Yes, the study doesn't have all the detail we'd want, but it's quite a
> > stretch to imagine that the lack of exposure data throws out my main
> > conclusion: that cycling is acceptably safe! In fact, the authors'
> > main conclusion seems to be this: "For the public, the message is that
> > injuries associated with these activities are uncommon and many of them
> > so minor as to require no treatment or activity reduction. This is
> > good news for the general population."
>
> Jeez, how brain-addled do you have to be to think injuries
> associated with cyling are 'uncommon?'

The research team did a lot of work and concluded that. Too bad they
didn't phone you (or some other bike messenger) to find out they should
throw their research out the window, eh? ;-)

> > > www.policy.rutgers.edu/papers/15.pdf
> >
> > ... Scary indeed - until we do the numbers: 25 injuries for
> > every 500,000 km of bicycling. Hmm... That means roughly one bicycling
> > injury for every 12,400 miles.
>
> > That sounds dangerous to you???
>
> (Remember we're talking about highly experienced adult
> club cyclists here, not kids, and not the bulk of cyclists.)

No, you're confusing sources.

Pucher et. al. said "For the United States, the data for travel
behavior come from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey
(NPTS) and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), both
conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway
Administration).11 The data on traffic fatalities also come from the
U.S Department of Transportation (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration),12 while the injury data come from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

None of those are restricted to "highly experienced adult club
cyclists."

> It doesn't sound great, considering I ride about that many
> miles each year. That would be about 25 injuries so far
> in my time as a cycling enthusiast, based on this supposedly
> 'extremely low' rate of injury. Extremely low my ass. Yeah, you
> use your definition and I'll use mine.

:-) This from the guy who emphasized the increase in safety with
experience!

Let's use yours, Robert. Let's take your last 12,400 miles. How many
times were _you_ injured? How safe is _your_ cycling?

> > I can only wonder at the psychological conflicts within a cyclist who
> > spends so much time discouraging cycling!
>
> Let me spell it out for you. I love riding my bikes. My love
> for cycling does not hinge on the pie-in-the-sky notion that
> 'cycling is safe' as yours apparently does. It is not a contradiction
> to love cycling and to also understand and respect the
> dangers involved. In fact, in my mind, it's an absolute
> necessity to understand and respect those dangers so
> that I can keep riding year after year, decade after
> decade, without encountering something so horrible as
> to make me wish the bicycle were never invented.
>
> For people who have already decided to ride bikes, for
> people who are beginning to fall in love with cycling like we
> did decades ago, I don't see the harm in helping them understand
> the specific hazards they are going to face. However, I do see
> the harm in blowing happy smoke up their ass, lying to them,
> and ridiculing any suggestion that cycling, even for rank beginners,
> is anything other than a perfectly safe activity. Ignorance of the
> dangers of cycling is the surest path to finding them.
>
> When new riders extend their hands for advice, don't
> hand them a crock of bullshit.

And of course, you're radically misrepresenting my position, as you've
done so many times before - and as you've misrepresented the position
of the Effective Cycling book and program. When I teach its principles
in classes, I explain what could happen and why. I explain the best
ways of preventing problems.

I don't claim cycling is "perfectly safe." I don't claim _anything_ is
"perfectly safe." But I do believe the current fashion for constant
handwringing is neurotic at best, and is doing society significant
harm. Fear of injury, kidnapping, terrorism, poisoning and more keep
more and more people from experiencing life beyond the TV.

And mostly, I feel that the chorus yelling "Bicycling isn't safe!" is
discouraging cycling, harming those who do cycle, and harming society.
You are among that chorus, and I refuse to join your chorus of
handwringers.

The data is against you. The risk of minor injury _is_ minor - and not
only by definition! The risk of major injury or death is, indeed,
minuscule by any rational standard. And such risks as there are can be
effectively halved, at least, by riding properly. Yes, that includes
being prepared for motorist mistakes, despite your previous pretending
that I ignore that aspect.

You are among those demonizing a wonderful activity. Again, you claim
to love bicycling, yet you devote your energy to claiming it isn't safe
to cycle. I don't know if this is some attempt to feel macho ("Damn!
I'm tough! I actually ride a bike!!!") or if there's some deeper
conflict at work. But you're propaganda harms us all.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:53:11
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> > And yes - bicycling in the US is made to look bad by that one tall bar
> > on page 11. Scary indeed - until we do the numbers: 25 injuries for
> > every 500,000 km of bicycling. Hmm... That means roughly one bicycling
> > injury for every 12,400 miles.
>
> > That sounds dangerous to you???
>
> (Remember we're talking about highly experienced adult
> club cyclists here, not kids, and not the bulk of cyclists.)

Sorry, I got the surveys mixed up here. One ER visit per 12400 miles
refers to the bulk of cyclists in the USA, not the LAB cyclists. The
LAB respondents went to the ER about half- to one third as often.
I would have visited the ER about 8 or 9 times at the LAB rate,
and well over 20 times (so far) at the supposed overall rate
for cyclists in the US (according to Pucher and Dijkstra).

(Good thing I was able to work through those stages and I am much
further along The Curve now, or cycling would simply be an
unworkable activity for me. I love it, but not THAT MUCH.)

Pucher and Dijkstra claim that American cyclists injure
themselves at three times the rate of German cyclists,
six times the rate of Dutch cyclists, and over ten times the
rate of American pedestrians.

It is difficult to see how the authors determined the total
amount of kilos cycled in the US from the surveys they cite
as sources for the information. I can't find where the
appropriate questions are even asked in the National
Household Travel Survey. Does anybody know how this
information could have been derived?

(blindfold, dartboard, bottle of Jack)

Robert

Date: 09 Sep 2006 08:45:51
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> By that logic no one should bother wearing seat belts. After all, the
> chance of being in an accident is /incredibly/ miniscule.

First, let me congratulate Bill on posting something with factual
content, as opposed to just insults. It's a big improvement.

It's still not very logical, though.

The "helmets are like seatbelts" underpinning is false, for many
reasons. Seatbelt designs are tested and certified using data from
accurate simulations of typical car crashes, involving accurate crash
test dummies and 35 mph impacts. Bike helmets are tested by dropping
helmeted "headforms" from a mere 2 meter height. There is no massive
body connected to the headform; the impact speed is only 14 mph; there
is no measurement of rotation of the headform (as in a typical grazing
impact), despite the current medical opinions that rotations cause most
brain damage.

IOW, your seatbelts are reasonably up to their task; bike helmets are
not. If your seatbelts were replaced by party ribbons, you'd have a
reasonable comparison.

> Just yesterday I had two "close calls", both involving vehicles passing me
> WAY too closely for comfort (eliciting loud yells from me both times).

Sounds like you're riding too far to the right. If you take enough of
the lane, these occurrences will become very rare.

> You
> really think the possibility that one of them would have caused me to crash
> either from direct contact or a startle response is "miniscule"?

Well, how often have you been passed closely? And how often have they
hit you? I've been passed by millions of cars, some too close for
comfort. None have ever made me crash.

> Then on today's ride I came across the scene of a bad -- BAD -- accident
> involving a train (!) and a "few cars" (heard on the radio and seen on TV
> later). It came at a spot where I often ride, and nearly did today.
> Luckily, I decided to tack on some miles and kept going north -- seeing the
> emergency vehicles screaming south about 10 minutes later -- which means if
> I HAD made the turn I very likely could have been right on the scene when
> and where the hell broke loose.

You're deep into fantasy now, trying to turn every hypothetical
possibility into a near-accident. Really, it's not that bad out there!

> My friend just got doored pretty badly on Sunday.

Your friend was riding too close to parked cars.

> Another friend t-boned a
> Taurus on Monday morning (car drove off, too) and is pretty banged up.
> ("Split" his helmet -- haven't seen it or him yet.)
>
> So I don't think the chances of getting hurt are THAT remote; certainly not
> "miniscule" in the true sense of the word.

"Minuscule" means simply "very small." There's no mathematically
precise description of how small.

But you need to focus on what helmets are supposed to do (and, even
better, on what they actually do). Your helmet does not pretend to
protect you against the massive injuries you'd expect if you were hit
from behind by a car, or involved in a train wreck, or any of the other
imaginary tragedies you harbor. Read the stickers on the inside. It's
intended to protect against a moderate bump on the head. At least,
that's the pretense.

The odds of your helmet protecting you against a serious head injury
really are minuscule, for two reasons. First, despite the
carefully-generated hysteria, biking has never been an unusual source
of head injuries, either in raw numbers, in "per mile" or in "per hour"
terms. Second, if you are unlucky enough to have a serious head
impact, bike helmets are too flimsy to make a practical difference in
most cases.

Wear one if you like, of course. But don't let it make you feel
protected; instead, assume it won't work.

And don't ignore the things that make a real difference in safety -
like choosing the right road position, watching the road surface,
obeying traffic laws and keeping alert for motorist mistakes.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:50:38
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
{ALL CONTEXT REMOVED}

>> By that logic no one should bother wearing seat belts. After all,
>> the chance of being in an accident is /incredibly/ miniscule.

> First, let me congratulate Bill on posting something with factual
> content, as opposed to just insults. It's a big improvement.
>
> It's still not very logical, though.

Sure it is. Too bad you snipped the comment to which I responded.

SMS (IIRC) wrote something to the effect that.... aw, heck. I'll just go
get it -- remembering, of course, that IT TOO was in the context of a
discussion:

"... Wearing a helmet won't reduce the risk of severe injury by much,
because the risk of being in an accident
involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with."

BY THAT LOGIC, and notwithstanding the relative merits of lids and belts,
one wouldn't bother with the latter because the "the risk of being in an
accident involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with."

I replied to /what he wrote/, not what you think he should have meant. HTH

{LONG BUNCH OF STUFF SNIPPED}

> But you need to focus on what helmets are supposed to do (and, even
> better, on what they actually do). Your helmet does not pretend to
> protect you against the massive injuries you'd expect if you were hit
> from behind by a car,

You're misrepresenting what I wrote, as I specifically said exactly that.
However, if a car causes me to crash either by brushing me or otherwise
disrupting my riding, then yes, I'd be glad to be wearing a helmet. Why
tear up my scalp or possibly worse if there's an easy way to prevent or at
least lessen the likelihood of it?

Sorry , Frank, I already promised myself I'd not bother with you any more.
My bad for even writing this much.

Life's too freaking short. I'd rather go ride. (Or in this case, do yoga.)

Sorno

> or involved in a train wreck

More misrepresentation -- a funny one, at least! LOL

Date: 09 Sep 2006 08:34:06
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> > the kind of rider surveyed by Moritz (Forester said that ten years
> > of experience would reduce one's accident rate by 80%).
>
> Forester said that, AFAICT, with no explanation of how it was
> determined.

Wrong, he explains it in Cycling for Bicycle Transportation
Engineers or whatever the f it's called, most ridiculously
pompous and redundant title for a book...

> As I've noted before, you're quick to demand bulletproof
> information from those who disagree with you; and you frequently
> disagree strongly with Forester and his admirers; yet you'll throw
> those principles to the wind when it suits your convoluted "cycling is
> dangerous" rationale!

No, I examine his data and his rationale, point by point,
and make a decision about whether it's bullshit or not. I
don't feel a need to cherry-pick obscure useless surveys.
In this case Forester seems to be about right. What he is
describing is a point on a curve. That curve is further fleshed
out by more recent surveys than Forester looked at, like
Moritz's above and Ken Kifer's survey of touring cyclists.
All of that data can be seen to describe the same ski-slope-
shaped curve, with experience on the x-axis and
accident rate on the y-axis.

It's obvious that experience translates into safer cycling. Do
you deny this? Do you think that 'cycling is safe' and
every rider in traffic faces the same level of risk? Do you
think 'cycling is safe' and therefore your kids will be protected
by the overall supposedly safe statistical level of cycling when
they go out on the street?

> > It would be difficult to design a more useless survey, wouldn't it?
> > Obviously, such a survey can tell us nothing about the variable
> > rates of injury among different activities until we know how much
> > time the respondents spent doing those activities. If the 'cyclists'
> > in the survey had only ridden a few hours that month then their
> > injury rate would be colossal.
>
> And conversely, if the walkers had walked only a few hours, their
> injury rate would have been worse. Now please explain why you assume
> walkers typically exercise more hours than cyclists do?

Why do you assume that I assume that? The point is you can't
draw any conclusions about injury RATE (injuries/time) from a useless
survey that makes no attempt to determine TIME spent in each
activity (gds' point about self-reported injuries notwithstanding).
You have to be pretty desperate to try to foist
something like that on the st folks of this newsgroup.

> Yes, the study doesn't have all the detail we'd want, but it's quite a
> stretch to imagine that the lack of exposure data throws out my main
> conclusion: that cycling is acceptably safe! In fact, the authors'
> main conclusion seems to be this: "For the public, the message is that
> injuries associated with these activities are uncommon and many of them
> so minor as to require no treatment or activity reduction. This is
> good news for the general population."

Jeez, how brain-addled do you have to be to think injuries
associated with cyling are 'uncommon?'

> > FWIW, here's a much more intensive study based on DOT
> > surveys. The authors find that riding a bike is over ten times
> > as likely as walking to cause injury, per kilometer traveled:
> >
> > www.policy.rutgers.edu/papers/15.pdf
>
> Of course, the author's data is based on phone surveys as well, and he
> acknowledges the potential for inaccuracy.

That's why I wrote 'FWIW.' To me, not a whole helluva lot.
But you have repeatedly expressed your faith in these surveys
and the researchers who crunch the numbers. PhD's!

> And yes - bicycling in the US is made to look bad by that one tall bar
> on page 11. Scary indeed - until we do the numbers: 25 injuries for
> every 500,000 km of bicycling. Hmm... That means roughly one bicycling
> injury for every 12,400 miles.

> That sounds dangerous to you???

(Remember we're talking about highly experienced adult
club cyclists here, not kids, and not the bulk of cyclists.)

It doesn't sound great, considering I ride about that many
miles each year. That would be about 25 injuries so far
in my time as a cycling enthusiast, based on this supposedly
'extremely low' rate of injury. Extremely low my ass. Yeah, you
use your definition and I'll use mine.

Funny how you look at this Moritz survey and see an
'extremely low' rate of injury, and I look at the same results
and think 'Damn, those LAB guys hurt themselves A LOT!'

> Granted, it appears by _this_ data to be worse than walking, but as so

> often before, we're comparing infinitesmals. Neither deserves much
> worry.

This is a really long-winded way to admit that your statement
'Cycling's numbers are better than those for walking' was pure crap.

> By now, I'm quite convinced you'll never accept data that shows cycling
> to be safe. Your choice is to scare people as much as you can.
>
> I can only wonder at the psychological conflicts within a cyclist who
> spends so much time discouraging cycling!

Let me spell it out for you. I love riding my bikes. My love
for cycling does not hinge on the pie-in-the-sky notion that
'cycling is safe' as yours apparently does. It is not a contradiction
to love cycling and to also understand and respect the
dangers involved. In fact, in my mind, it's an absolute
necessity to understand and respect those dangers so
that I can keep riding year after year, decade after
decade, without encountering something so horrible as
to make me wish the bicycle were never invented.

For people who have already decided to ride bikes, for
people who are beginning to fall in love with cycling like we
did decades ago, I don't see the harm in helping them understand
the specific hazards they are going to face. However, I do see
the harm in blowing happy smoke up their ass, lying to them,
and ridiculing any suggestion that cycling, even for rank beginners,
is anything other than a perfectly safe activity. Ignorance of the
dangers of cycling is the surest path to finding them.

When new riders extend their hands for advice, don't
hand them a crock of bullshit.

Robert

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:13:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

r15757@aol.com wrote:
{snips taken}

> Jeez, how brain-addled do you have to be to think injuries
> associated with cyling are 'uncommon?'

Well, you ARE dealing with a blindly zealous /ideologue/, you know.

>> Of course, the author's data is based on phone surveys as well, and
>> he acknowledges the potential for inaccuracy.

> That's why I wrote 'FWIW.' To me, not a whole helluva lot.
> But you have repeatedly expressed your faith in these surveys
> and the researchers who crunch the numbers. PhD's!

Blind faith. Kinda ironic. Heh.

>> Granted, it appears by _this_ data to be worse than walking, but as
>> so
>> often before, we're comparing infinitesmals. Neither deserves much
>> worry.

> This is a really long-winded way to admit that your statement
> 'Cycling's numbers are better than those for walking' was pure crap.

You aren't /surprised/ by that one hopes.

> When new riders extend their hands for advice, don't
> hand them a crock of bullshit.

It's a little late to expect Frank to change /now/. Heh.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 06:38:25
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two
> >> approaches: (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show
> >> whether consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly
> >> reduce the risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident
> >> -- so much so as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on
> >> each and every trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and
> >> bike enthiasts whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every
> >> trip, and why.
> >
> > Your #1 is a two part question. Wearing a helmet won't reduce the risk
> > of severe injury by much, because the risk of being in an accident
> > involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with.
>
> By that logic no one should bother wearing seat belts. After all, the
> chance of being in an accident is /incredibly/ miniscule.

Classic fallacy. Comparing seatbelts to helmets. Completely bogus.
Seatbelts are far more effective in preventing injury to the entire
body, helmets slightly reduce impact to a part of the body that's
infrequently struck. You cannot equate them statistically, unless
you're a dry drunk republican with a vindictive sense of humor.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:36:11
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

landotter ("I'm just a meanspirited ground rodent") wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two
>>>> approaches: (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that
>>>> show whether consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot
>>>> significantly reduce the risk of severe injury in the event of a
>>>> biking accident -- so much so as to make it reasonable to have to
>>>> wear a helmet on each and every trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of
>>>> random bikers and bike enthiasts whether or not THEY wear helmets
>>>> on each and every trip, and why.
>>>
>>> Your #1 is a two part question. Wearing a helmet won't reduce the
>>> risk of severe injury by much, because the risk of being in an
>>> accident involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with.
>>
>> By that logic no one should bother wearing seat belts. After all,
>> the chance of being in an accident is /incredibly/ miniscule.
>
> Classic fallacy. Comparing seatbelts to helmets. Completely bogus.
> Seatbelts are far more effective in preventing injury to the entire
> body, helmets slightly reduce impact to a part of the body that's
> infrequently struck. You cannot equate them statistically, unless
> you're a dry drunk republican with a vindictive sense of humor.

Why address your point when you resort to personal attack?

PLONK (better late than never)

Buh-bye, asswipe.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:40:53
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:36:11 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Why address your point when you resort to personal attack?
>

>
>Buh-bye, asswipe.
>

Short-term memory loss on show here, folks.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:52:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 16:36:11 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>> Why address your point when you resort to personal attack?
>>
>
>
>>
>> Buh-bye, asswipe.
>>
>
> Short-term memory loss on show here, folks.

That why you deleted his personal attack, weasel?

Guess what: PLONK YOU TOO!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............................

Date: 09 Sep 2006 04:35:22
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Roger Houston wrote:
> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:HoNLg.16391$%j7.8074@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for many
> > years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
> > helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.
>
> Cite, please.

Kearns, Cathy (2006). "Re: hard facts about helmets and safety.
rec.bicyles.misc retrieved 9 Sept. 2006.

:)

Date: 08 Sep 2006 23:13:28
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
> (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
> consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
> risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
> as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
> trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
> whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

Your #1 is a two part question. Wearing a helmet won't reduce the risk
of severe injury by much, because the risk of being in an accident
involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with. Even in the
unlikely event of an accident, the number of accidents involving head
impact is small. So in order for a helmet to make a significant
difference, you have to look at the subset of accidents where a head
impact occurs.

Personally, I don't wear a helmet on every trip. Still, I know that
according to all the statistical evidence, in the unlikely event that I
did have a head impact crash while not wearing a helmet, the injuries
would be more severe without the helmet.

When I run bicycle education classes for kids, the first thing I do is
to make it clear to them that wearing a helmet doesn't mean that they
can suddenly ride like idiots, and that a helmet is only a small part of
overall safety. It's a required part of overall safety (for kids under
18), and it's strictly enforced in many jurisdictions.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 07:06:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

SMS wrote:
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two
>> approaches: (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show
>> whether consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly
>> reduce the risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident
>> -- so much so as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on
>> each and every trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and
>> bike enthiasts whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every
>> trip, and why.
>
> Your #1 is a two part question. Wearing a helmet won't reduce the risk
> of severe injury by much, because the risk of being in an accident
> involving serious injury is so minuscule to begin with.

By that logic no one should bother wearing seat belts. After all, the
chance of being in an accident is /incredibly/ miniscule.

Just yesterday I had two "close calls", both involving vehicles passing me
WAY too closely for comfort (eliciting loud yells from me both times). You
really think the possibility that one of them would have caused me to crash
either from direct contact or a startle response is "miniscule"? Doesn't
seem all that remote to ME at the moment. (I'm not suggesting a lid would
help if "run over" -- but just getting side-swiped and caused to go down,
I'd be GLAD to be wearing one.)

Then on today's ride I came across the scene of a bad -- BAD -- accident
involving a train (!) and a "few cars" (heard on the radio and seen on TV
later). It came at a spot where I often ride, and nearly did today.
Luckily, I decided to tack on some miles and kept going north -- seeing the
emergency vehicles screaming south about 10 minutes later -- which means if
I HAD made the turn I very likely could have been right on the scene when
and where the hell broke loose.

My friend just got doored pretty badly on Sunday. Another friend t-boned a
Taurus on Monday morning (car drove off, too) and is pretty banged up.
("Split" his helmet -- haven't seen it or him yet.)

So I don't think the chances of getting hurt are THAT remote; certainly not
"miniscule" in the true sense of the word.

Bill S.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 17:25:04
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Well, I suppose your definition of "extremely low" may not be the same
> > as mine. And I know of no definition that's officially accepted.
> >
> > But one researcher cited in that website found that cycling enthusiasts
> > who ride regularly crash once every 8,500 miles, with most crashes
> > being negligible. Crashes costing $50 worth of equipment, or needing
> > medical treatment, happen to them only once in 11 years. To me,
> > that's "extremely low." See Moritz, W. "Adult Bicyclists in the
> > United States - Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996,"
> > presented at the Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting,
> > 1998
>
>
> I'm familiar with that survey, of League of American Bicyclists
> members. But we're talking about an 18 year-old kid here. The
> average respondent to that survey was in his late forties iirc and
> had 14 years of experience. It's well accepted that younger, less
> experienced riders will have much higher accident rates than
> the kind of rider surveyed by Moritz (Forester said that ten years
> of experience would reduce one's accident rate by 80%).

Forester said that, AFAICT, with no explanation of how it was
determined. As I've noted before, you're quick to demand bulletproof
information from those who disagree with you; and you frequently
disagree strongly with Forester and his admirers; yet you'll throw
those principles to the wind when it suits your convoluted "cycling is
dangerous" rationale!

> Furthermore, the results of that survey are not as altogether
> encouraging as you insist. About 1-in-10 of respondents, experienced
> though they were, had suffered a 'serious' crash in the previous
> year.

Yes, yes, Robert, we've been through this 20 times. Moritz defined a
$50 mechanical repair as a "serious accident."

Botch a trackstand, fall into the mud and bend your derailleur?
SERIOUS!

> About one third had suffered some sort of crash in the
> previous year.

"Some sort" being defined as "falling off one's bike gently enough to
not even do _that_ much damage." If skinning your knee scares you that
much, please, do not ride a bike. Seek help for your phobia instead.

> So, this survey certainly does not show that
> 'cycling is safe'--it doesn't even show that cycling is safe
> for the older, experienced riders surveyed. Their accident
> rates are not what I would call low, much less 'extremely low.'

First, you may use your favorite judgement of "safe" or "low" or
whatever. I'll use mine. As an illustration of my judgement, I have
for decades encouraged my most cherished family members to ride bikes.
Yes, even without special protective gear. And, miracle of miracles,
we are all alive, fit and able. Not a single scar!

Of course, this is comletely normal (um, except the "encourage" part).
But one would never know it by reading your fearmongering!

> > > And cycling's numbers are
> > > only better than those for walking regarding fatalities.
> >
> > :-) I'm glad you accept that the fatality rate of cyclists is, in
> > fact, lower than that of pedestrians. (That's per mile _or_ per hour,
> > folks.)
>
> This is not something that should bring you such glee.

?? Cycling is safe. It pleases me. Sorry it depresses you!

> > > Cyclists have a far higher rate of injury than pedestrians.
> >
> > Robert and I have gone around and around on these points. IIRC, he has
> > not commented on the research paper "Injury Rates form Walking,
> > Gardening, Weighlifting, Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics" by Kenneth
> > E. Powell et. al., in _Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise_, 1998,
> > V. 30 pp. 1246-1249.
> >
> > Random phone surveys of over 5200 subjects asked about their activities
> > and their injuries in the past 30 days. Of those responding, 2.4% of
> > the weightlifters had injured themselves; 1.6% of those who gardened;
> > 1.4% of those who did aerobics; 1.4% of those who walked for exercise;
> > and 0.9% of those who biked.
> >
> > Yes, the injury rate for cycling was significantly lower than that for
> > walkers.
>
> It would be difficult to design a more useless survey, wouldn't it?
> Obviously, such a survey can tell us nothing about the variable
> rates of injury among different activities until we know how much
> time the respondents spent doing those activities. If the 'cyclists'
> in the survey had only ridden a few hours that month then their
> injury rate would be colossal.

And conversely, if the walkers had walked only a few hours, their
injury rate would have been worse. Now please explain why you assume
walkers typically exercise more hours than cyclists do?

Yes, the study doesn't have all the detail we'd want, but it's quite a
stretch to imagine that the lack of exposure data throws out my main
conclusion: that cycling is acceptably safe! In fact, the authors'
main conclusion seems to be this: "For the public, the message is that
injuries associated with these activities are uncommon and many of them
so minor as to require no treatment or activity reduction. This is
good news for the general population."

> FWIW, here's a much more intensive study based on DOT
> surveys. The authors find that riding a bike is over ten times
> as likely as walking to cause injury, per kilometer traveled:
>
> www.policy.rutgers.edu/papers/15.pdf

Of course, the author's data is based on phone surveys as well, and he
acknowledges the potential for inaccuracy.

And yes - bicycling in the US is made to look bad by that one tall bar
on page 11. Scary indeed - until we do the numbers: 25 injuries for
every 500,000 km of bicycling. Hmm... That means roughly one bicycling
injury for every 12,400 miles.

That sounds dangerous to you???

Granted, it appears by _this_ data to be worse than walking, but as so
often before, we're comparing infinitesmals. Neither deserves much
worry.

(Really, the main point of Pucher's paper is the same as most of his
other work. He is well known as a proponent of Dutch-style bike lanes
and paths... hence the "Lessons from The Netherlands and Germany" part
of the title. He wants the US to look like Amsterdam, so we can get
down to Amsterdam's low level of cycling injury - or, more likely, so
he can consult on the design of lots of bike paths.)

>
> > I wish you'd explain why you won't accept data that shows cycling to be
> > safe!
>
> If such data existed, surely you would have posted it by now.
> The surveys you cite here do no such thing.

By now, I'm quite convinced you'll never accept data that shows cycling
to be safe. Your choice is to scare people as much as you can.

I can only wonder at the psychological conflicts within a cyclist who
spends so much time discouraging cycling!

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 16:33:24
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

gds wrote:
> Just an aside on " self reported" injuries and self perceptions of
> "serious injuries." I'd venture that such data is pretty hard to
> interpret.
>
> I've had two crashes within the past year. My own perception of them
> would be "trivial." There was no damage to my bike and minimal damage
> to me (not counting huge damage to my ego in one case). However, one of
> these crashes is one that folks around here have been talking about
> quite a bit. I gather that from an observer's point of view it was
> quite dramatic. It was a slow speed uphill (full out climbing but sadly
> still slow speed ;-) ) crash in which I wound up going over the guard
> rail into some rocks. However, I had minor bruising, a couple of
> scratches and got back on the bike and finished the ride with the lead
> group. I'd know others thought it as non trivial.
>
> My point isn't about which classification is correct but that simply
> without strict definitons and data describing the incident that it is
> pretty hard to compare self reported data of any sort.
> I continue to be less than impressed by mediocre research in which
> sophisticated statistal tests are applied to poor data.

I agree, in general, with that last sentence - although sophisticated
statistics can, in certain cases, tease good information out of lousy
data. As a trivial example, one might take 20 thermometers made with
bad quality control, so there is a large amount of random error in
their readings. While any one thermometer can't be trusted, the mean
of their readings is, in fact, the most likely true reading.

Still, there are plenty of GIGO studies of more complicated scenarios.
Unfortunately, few people are up to critiquing them rationally.

Regarding the definition of "trivial" (or it's converse, "serious" )
Moritz attempted to set bounds on "serious" by defining it as "Damage
of $50, and/or requiring medical treatment." Consider that if your
apparently spectacular fall had bent your STI lever, you'd be in his
"serious" category. My only moving on-road fall ever tore my jacket.
Thank God the jacket cost only $30, or my accident would have been
"serious!" ;-)

But it _is_ difficult to define "serious." The default used (but
seldom stated) in most studies is "causing a trip to the ER." But that
is weak, as well. Obviously, whether one goes to the ER depends
largely on one's medical coverage. By that standard, prosperous
professionals lucky enough to have excellent medical coverage are
"seriously hurt" if they stove a finger and go in to make sure it's not
broken; low-income kids with gushing blood might not be "seriously
hurt" if their mother can somehow get the bleeding to stop before the
next bus arrives in half an hour.

There is an Abbreviated Injury Severity scale which could be used with
reasonable accuracy. But of course, it's never applied to that
low-income kid I mentioned, because he's never seen my medical
personnel (and studies to record such info are rare). Still, as I
pointed out in http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/answer5.htm,
the vast majority of cyclists' ER-treated injuries are low level - AIS
#1.

Overall, I'm distressed by the modern tendency to find terrible danger
in everything, despite the fact that we've eliminated so much danger
from our daily lives. I believe it's at that point that the warnings
are causing more damage (read, couch potato illnesses) than the
activities in question.

I honestly think we have a gene that drives us to warn others of
danger, in order to keep the species (and itself) reproducing. But we
no longer have leopards working the edge of the fire circle, or
barely-domesticated cattle that might gore us, or primitive industrial
machinery that can pluck off our hands. Hell, even our wars are
handled remotely, with cruise-missle "shock and awe." (Too bad that's
not true of our occupations-for-oil.)

Anyway, we've got to warn about _something_ to satisfy that gene - or,
in some cases, to sell our little books of warnings. So we're down to
warning people that riding a bicycle is really, really, no kidding,
dangerous!

So watch out for misinformation. It's more dangerous than bicycling,
by far.

And now my gene is satisfied! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 14:42:21
From: gds
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 14:18:11 -0700, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
>
Gary
>
>
> We can assume you mean studies like TRT?

In this case the Powell study referenced by Frank. I'm not even going
as far as Robert does to question the value of the rates of injury
without a full understanding of the denominator. But self reported
injuries are notoriously suspect.

Self reporting is simply not a god way to judge.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 14:18:11
From: gds
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Just an aside on " self reported" injuries and self perceptions of
"serious injuries." I'd venture that such data is pretty hard to
interpret.

I've had two crashes within the past year. My own perception of them
would be "trivial." There was no damage to my bike and minimal damage
to me (not counting huge damage to my ego in one case). However, one of
these crashes is one that folks around here have been talking about
quite a bit. I gather that from an observer's point of view it was
quite dramatic. It was a slow speed uphill (full out climbing but sadly
still slow speed ;-) ) crash in which I wound up going over the guard
rail into some rocks. However, I had minor bruising, a couple of
scratches and got back on the bike and finished the ride with the lead
group. I'd know others thought it as non trivial.

My point isn't about which classification is correct but that simply
without strict definitons and data describing the incident that it is
pretty hard to compare self reported data of any sort.
I continue to be less than impressed by mediocre research in which
sophisticated statistal tests are applied to poor data.

Gary

Date: 08 Sep 2006 21:27:42
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 8 Sep 2006 14:18:11 -0700, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote:

>
>Just an aside on " self reported" injuries and self perceptions of
>"serious injuries." I'd venture that such data is pretty hard to
>interpret.
>
>I've had two crashes within the past year. My own perception of them
>would be "trivial." There was no damage to my bike and minimal damage
>to me (not counting huge damage to my ego in one case). However, one of
>these crashes is one that folks around here have been talking about
>quite a bit. I gather that from an observer's point of view it was
>quite dramatic. It was a slow speed uphill (full out climbing but sadly
>still slow speed ;-) ) crash in which I wound up going over the guard
>rail into some rocks. However, I had minor bruising, a couple of
>scratches and got back on the bike and finished the ride with the lead
>group. I'd know others thought it as non trivial.
>
>My point isn't about which classification is correct but that simply
>without strict definitons and data describing the incident that it is
>pretty hard to compare self reported data of any sort.
>I continue to be less than impressed by mediocre research in which
>sophisticated statistal tests are applied to poor data.
>
>Gary

We can assume you mean studies like TRT?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 13:19:30
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I suppose your definition of "extremely low" may not be the same
> as mine. And I know of no definition that's officially accepted.
>
> But one researcher cited in that website found that cycling enthusiasts
> who ride regularly crash once every 8,500 miles, with most crashes
> being negligible. Crashes costing $50 worth of equipment, or needing
> medical treatment, happen to them only once in 11 years. To me,
> that's "extremely low." See Moritz, W. "Adult Bicyclists in the
> United States - Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996,"
> presented at the Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting,
> 1998

I'm familiar with that survey, of League of American Bicyclists
members. But we're talking about an 18 year-old kid here. The
average respondent to that survey was in his late forties iirc and
had 14 years of experience. It's well accepted that younger, less
experienced riders will have much higher accident rates than
the kind of rider surveyed by Moritz (Forester said that ten years
of experience would reduce one's accident rate by 80%).
Furthermore, the results of that survey are not as altogether
encouraging as you insist. About 1-in-10 of respondents, experienced
though they were, had suffered a 'serious' crash in the previous
year. About one third had suffered some sort of crash in the
previous year. So, this survey certainly does not show that
'cycling is safe'--it doesn't even show that cycling is safe
for the older, experienced riders surveyed. Their accident
rates are not what I would call low, much less 'extremely low.'

> > And cycling's numbers are
> > only better than those for walking regarding fatalities.
>
> :-) I'm glad you accept that the fatality rate of cyclists is, in
> fact, lower than that of pedestrians. (That's per mile _or_ per hour,
> folks.)

This is not something that should bring you such glee.

> > Cyclists have a far higher rate of injury than pedestrians.
>
> Robert and I have gone around and around on these points. IIRC, he has
> not commented on the research paper "Injury Rates form Walking,
> Gardening, Weighlifting, Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics" by Kenneth
> E. Powell et. al., in _Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise_, 1998,
> V. 30 pp. 1246-1249.
>
> Random phone surveys of over 5200 subjects asked about their activities
> and their injuries in the past 30 days. Of those responding, 2.4% of
> the weightlifters had injured themselves; 1.6% of those who gardened;
> 1.4% of those who did aerobics; 1.4% of those who walked for exercise;
> and 0.9% of those who biked.
>
> Yes, the injury rate for cycling was significantly lower than that for
> walkers.

It would be difficult to design a more useless survey, wouldn't it?
Obviously, such a survey can tell us nothing about the variable
rates of injury among different activities until we know how much
time the respondents spent doing those activities. If the 'cyclists'
in the survey had only ridden a few hours that month then their
injury rate would be colossal. The survey tells us nothing.

FWIW, here's a much more intensive study based on DOT
surveys. The authors find that riding a bike is over ten times
as likely as walking to cause injury, per kilometer traveled:

www.policy.rutgers.edu/papers/15.pdf

> I wish you'd explain why you won't accept data that shows cycling to be
> safe!

If such data existed, surely you would have posted it by now.
The surveys you cite here do no such thing.

To the OP, should there be a chance in hell that he's still
reading: America's worship of bicycle helmets, for children
as well as adults, is a silly, stupid response to the dangers
of cycling in traffic.

Robert

Date: 08 Sep 2006 08:25:56
From:
Subject: How to read a helmet thread. [was: PLZ NO....Hard facts about helmets and safety?]

Claire Petersky wrote:
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157644076.279970.97700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The solution is fairly simple. Reading posts is voluntary, not
> > mandatory. Just skip the ones you don't like.
>
> It's one thing when helmets are in the thread title. It's another when so
> many other threads that weren't originally about helmets become, once again,
> the rehash of the same old arguments and attacks.

I agree, when it's about helmets, the word "helmet" should be in the
title. Of course, that problem exists with other topics as well. I'm
not sure how to fix it - it's too easy to forget to change the title.

> I end up reading these
> because I'm hoping for some original and interesting content. Poor me.

Here's a suggestion. (You already know many of the players, but I'll
write this for someone who doesn't recognize the names yet.)

Read a helmet thread. Note who says what. Note who deals in insults,
vs. who asks intelligent questions or makes intelligent posts.

After a short while, you'll learn that there are some posters who
_never_ offer "original and interesting content" but instead deal
exclusively in childishness. (At least, I've learned that.) Since some
of those are high-volume posters, you can safely skip their posts.
That saves lots of time.

Even intelligent, polite posters often waste time responding to the
aforementioned trolls. It's a human weakness. It's easy enough to
speed-read those responses, slowing down if you see something
worthwhile.

When a new name appears, check out the thread's responses. Many new
posts do repeat hackneyed ideas, but occasionally there's a new take
and some productive discussion before the peanut gallery starts
yelling.

Oh - and my personal habit is to actually check out any links. I give
scholarly links or references much more critical attention. That
sometimes requires a trip to the library. But that's what got me
really learning about this issue.

FWIW, the topics of bike safety and helmets, their necessity (or lack
of same) and their effectiveness (or lack of same) are things I
actively study. New information _does_ become available, and
occasionally makes its way into the helmet threads. But yes, it's a
slow process, and there's lots of chaff hiding each grain of wheat.
For me, it's worth it, mostly because I'm committed to defending
cycling.

So if you're interested enough, skim appropriately. And, as they say,
non illegitimi carborundum.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 07:06:48
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Where are these peer reviewed massive population studies??? When a
study looks at and reports rates....it is a far different thing than
doing a prospective population study where you set the details of the
study ahead of time.

Again......the consensus is, that with the best designed studies to
date, helmets seem to exert a substantially protective effect. That
doesn't mean that they definitely do. All you can do is take the most
objective view possible and sumize the research. When this is done,
helmets seem to have a substantial effect.

I study epidemiology. Reports of injury rates or studies that look at
a group of people aren't that great. If you are just looking at
hospital records there are a myriad of things that go unevaluated.
There is sampling bias, confounding, response bias, etc. The best
study you are going to get is probably a case control study (still
flawed but better). When you look at those, they demonstrate a high
level of protection.

You will probably never figure out how many people avoid accidents
becuase they weren't wearing a helmet. You will also probably never
figure out how many people had accidents that weren't reported because
the helmet protected them. You can do this with a small sample but not
one large enough to be instructive unless you do a massive study.

For the record, I am against helmet laws until the proof is more
unequivocol. But don't pick one study and yield it like a blunt
instrument. Don't just tell everyone what the research says without
understanding it.

As for the all powerful, all knowing highly influential bike helmet
lobby...........well...they can take a number behind big pharma, big
oil and 100s of other industries with a lot more influence.

Mcap

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 04:37:16 -0700, limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >I don't envy you having to try to convince a teenager of _anything_ ,
> >as most of them already know _everything_. :-)
>
>
> Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
> Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.
>
>
> >
> >In my opinion there are only 2 reasons to NOT wear a helmet.
> >
> >A ) You don't have a brain.
>
>
> Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
> Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.
>
>
>
> >About 3 years ago I had 4 bike wrecks in a 2 week period and broke one
> >helmet at the front and another hemet at the back. This was after
> >riding for over 20 years without even one mishap.
> >
> >It can happen to anyone, at any time, or any place.
> >
>
>
> A single anecdote makes massive peer-reviewed population-level studies
> "innaccurate", say the pro-helmet zealots, and now you too.
>
> Are you in favour of mandatory helmet laws as well?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 16:08:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:
> Where are these peer reviewed massive population studies???

The only thing "massive" in relation to Flailor is that huge gaping pie hole
passing for a yap.

Now please stop top-posting. TYVM

*********

When a
> study looks at and reports rates....it is a far different thing than
> doing a prospective population study where you set the details of the
> study ahead of time.
>
> Again......the consensus is, that with the best designed studies to
> date, helmets seem to exert a substantially protective effect. That
> doesn't mean that they definitely do. All you can do is take the most
> objective view possible and sumize the research. When this is
> done, helmets seem to have a substantial effect.
>
> I study epidemiology. Reports of injury rates or studies that look at
> a group of people aren't that great. If you are just looking at
> hospital records there are a myriad of things that go unevaluated.
> There is sampling bias, confounding, response bias, etc. The best
> study you are going to get is probably a case control study (still
> flawed but better). When you look at those, they demonstrate a high
> level of protection.
>
> You will probably never figure out how many people avoid accidents
> becuase they weren't wearing a helmet. You will also probably never
> figure out how many people had accidents that weren't reported because
> the helmet protected them. You can do this with a small sample but
> not one large enough to be instructive unless you do a massive study.
>
> For the record, I am against helmet laws until the proof is more
> unequivocol. But don't pick one study and yield it like a blunt
> instrument. Don't just tell everyone what the research says without
> understanding it.
>
> As for the all powerful, all knowing highly influential bike helmet
> lobby...........well...they can take a number behind big pharma, big
> oil and 100s of other industries with a lot more influence.
>
> Mcap
>
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 04:37:16 -0700, limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't envy you having to try to convince a teenager of _anything_
>>> , as most of them already know _everything_. :-)
>>
>>
>> Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
>> Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion there are only 2 reasons to NOT wear a helmet.
>>>
>>> A ) You don't have a brain.
>>
>>
>> Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
>> Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.
>>
>>
>>
>>> About 3 years ago I had 4 bike wrecks in a 2 week period and broke
>>> one helmet at the front and another hemet at the back. This was
>>> after riding for over 20 years without even one mishap.
>>>
>>> It can happen to anyone, at any time, or any place.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A single anecdote makes massive peer-reviewed population-level
>> studies "innaccurate", say the pro-helmet zealots, and now you too.
>>
>> Are you in favour of mandatory helmet laws as well?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 04:37:16
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 12:15:24
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 8 Sep 2006 04:37:16 -0700, limeylew@gmail.com wrote:

>I don't envy you having to try to convince a teenager of _anything_ ,
>as most of them already know _everything_. :-)

Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.

>
>In my opinion there are only 2 reasons to NOT wear a helmet.
>
>A ) You don't have a brain.

Apparently this condition extends into adulthood for people like
Sorni, Ozark, Starr - and now you.

>About 3 years ago I had 4 bike wrecks in a 2 week period and broke one
>helmet at the front and another hemet at the back. This was after
>riding for over 20 years without even one mishap.
>
>It can happen to anyone, at any time, or any place.
>

A single anecdote makes massive peer-reviewed population-level studies
"innaccurate", say the pro-helmet zealots, and now you too.

Are you in favour of mandatory helmet laws as well?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:54:47
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> State law, 2003.
> >>>
> >>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
> >>>
> >>> So far.
> >>
> >> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
> >> when "consumer protection" was king.
> >
> > Why guess?
> >
> > Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
> > something up and report on it?
>
> Because I don't care about some unenforced kiddie lid law. (That was the
> POINT.)

OK, I see. You don't care about laws that apply to people under 18 -
your definition of a "kiddie."

You don't care about all-ages laws in certain cities.

You don't care about all-ages laws in other states, or in other
countries.

You don't care about laws that are enforced only against people the
cops don't like.

You don't care if such laws demonstrably reduce cycling.

You don't care about learning facts pertinent to this discussion.

But damn, you sure are dedicated to insults and trolling!

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:13:03
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 7 Sep 2006 17:54:47 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> State law, 2003.
>> >>>
>> >>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>> >>>
>> >>> So far.
>> >>
>> >> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
>> >> when "consumer protection" was king.
>> >
>> > Why guess?
>> >
>> > Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
>> > something up and report on it?
>>
>> Because I don't care about some unenforced kiddie lid law. (That was the
>> POINT.)
>
>OK, I see. You don't care about laws that apply to people under 18 -
>your definition of a "kiddie."
>
>You don't care about all-ages laws in certain cities.
>
>You don't care about all-ages laws in other states, or in other
>countries.
>
>You don't care about laws that are enforced only against people the
>cops don't like.
>

This is starting to sound a lot like "first they came for the xxxx".

When California passes an MHL that includes Bill Sornson, do you think
he'll complain that there was no one left to speak up for him?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:22:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

> When California passes an MHL that includes Bill Sornson, do you think
> he'll complain that there was no one left to speak up for him?

Melodramatic much?

ROTFL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:44:23
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:
> It may be true, that the evidence is less than you think. But think
> about how difficult it is to conduct a prospective study and all of the
> confounding factors involved. In the best designed studies performed
> to date, the evidence is CLEAR that helmets substantially reduce the
> severity and rate of head injuries due to biking accidents.

I disagree strongly.

I'd sumize the "studies" results this way: The bulk of case-control
studies find some injury reduction benefit to helmets. Most find far
less than the "85%" that's quoted endlessly - that finding is actually
an outlier.

The alternative, the time-series studies, typically find no reduction
in injury rates attributable to helmets. That is, when large
populations are convinced (or forced) to don helmets based on the
case-control studies, the predicted reductions fail to appear. In
fact, it's not unusual for injury rates to actually rise. This has
been noted in the New York Times article reprinted at
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b63eec01188.htm
as well as in many serious research papers.

The situation is exactly analogous to that for Hormone Replacement
Therapy (HRT) for post-menopausal women. Case-control studies clearly
showed HRT led to less cardiovascular disease; based on that, HRT was
widely promoted; and in the general population, it became clear that
HRT actually _caused_ cardiovascular disease.

The explanation? With HRT, researchers now know that the self-selected
women who were early adopters of HRT were unusually concerned with
their health. They selected not only HRT, but other measurest that
kept them healthy - and in fact, those measures made up for the damage
of HRT.

The general population was convinced only to adopt HRT. They were
harmed - and now, HRT is not normally recommended.

Self-selection is poison to good data. And every case-control study of
bike helmets has self-selected helmet wearers. The analogy is nearly
perfect.

>
> Those of us in research rely on the cochrane collaboration to
> sumize and critique the literature in certain cases. They recently
> performed an analysis of the reserach on helmets. They found 5 case
> control studies that met their criteria:
>
> .....Head and brain injury results were also sumized using
> meta-analysis techniques. MAIN RESULTS: . This review identified five
> well conducted case control studies which met our selection criteria.
> Helmets provide a 63%-88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and
> severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal
> levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and
> crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid
> facial areas are reduced 65%. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Helmets reduce
> bicycle-related head and facial injuries for bicyclists of all ages
> involved in all types of crashes including those involving motor
> vehicles.......

You seem unaware that the Cochrane study your alluding to was conducted
by Diane Thompson, of the Harborview Institute and of the team
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. She was one of the leads of the "85%"
case-control study, the one with the record unrealistic prediction of
benefit. Despite years of having its shortcomings endlessly discussed,
she saw fit to include it in her Cochrane study.

Worse, four of her other studies were also included, so that her own
research, faulty as it was, dominated the Cochrane results. Research
published in top-quality journals (for example, Accident Analysis &
Prevention) that showed less or zero helmet benefit, was not included.
(In fact, to this day, some pro-helmet researchers claim that there is
no research that contradicts their views - a k of either
professional ignorance, or outright lying).

Gathering up four of one's own papers and pretending they represent the
breadth of research on a particular topic does not constitute a
well-structured Cochrane review.

>
> Yes, there should be more studies. But I don't think it's responsible
> for a few uninformed people to dissuade helmet use in cyclists based on
> nothing but intuition. Read the research. The cochrane collaboration
> is extensively used and respected throughout medicine.

Read www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1069. Don't assume that research
backed by helmet manufacturers is altruistic.

> Perhaps a few hours of working with someone who has a traumatic brain
> injury would change your minds. One day you are fine, and then the
> next, you can't speak, eat or even clean yourself after going to
> bathroom (depending on severity). It is sobering.

We hear that from time to time. Oddly, the folks who urge helmet use
by that sort of pronouncement never seem to apply it to the really
large sources of traumatic brain injury. They don't call for car
helmets, despite car occupants domination of TBI cases (about half).
They don't apply it to people moving about their own homes (about 40%).
They apply it only to cyclists, who are roughly 1% of the TBI problem.

They can't - or shouldn't - be justifying on per-hour risk, because the
risk of serious brain injury while cycling is about the same as for
motorists, and less than for pedestrians.

What _is_ the justification for limiting that horror-story caution to
cyclists?

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:15:02
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
> > State law, 2003.
> >
> > Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
> >
> > So far.
>
> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days when
> "consumer protection" was king.

Why guess?

Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
something up and report on it?

You've wasted literally months spewing childish insults. If you think
this topic is worth months of your time, it's a shame you can't address
the topic in a more intelligent manner.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:35:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>
>>> State law, 2003.
>>>
>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>
>>> So far.
>>
>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
>> when "consumer protection" was king.
>
> Why guess?
>
> Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
> something up and report on it?

Because I don't care about some unenforced kiddie lid law. (That was the
POINT.)

Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:08:10
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:35:02 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> State law, 2003.
>>>>
>>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>>
>>>> So far.
>>>
>>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
>>> when "consumer protection" was king.
>>
>> Why guess?
>>
>> Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
>> something up and report on it?
>
>Because I don't care about some unenforced kiddie lid law. (That was the
>POINT.)
>

So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:25:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:35:02 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> State law, 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far.
>>>>
>>>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state
>>>> days when "consumer protection" was king.
>>>
>>> Why guess?
>>>
>>> Why not actually try to learn something factual? Why not look
>>> something up and report on it?
>>
>> Because I don't care about some unenforced kiddie lid law. (That
>> was the POINT.)
>>
>
> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?

So, you're still beating your {wife/girlfriend/dog/boyfriend}? LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:07:34
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote in part:
> > Point b: The probability of an accident is, indeed, extremely low,
> > especially if your son does something radical like actually obeying the
> > laws and minding the condition of the road surface. The fearmongering
> > regarding bicycling is false. See
> > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and check the
> > references.
> > In fact, cycling's numbers are better than those for walking, at least
> > near traffic. (That includes using sidewalks, BTW.)
>
> That's very misleading. The probability of an accident is
> nowhere near 'extremely low.'

Well, I suppose your definition of "extremely low" may not be the same
as mine. And I know of no definition that's officially accepted.

But one researcher cited in that website found that cycling enthusiasts
who ride regularly crash once every 8,500 miles, with most crashes
being negligible. Crashes costing $50 worth of equipment, or needing
medical treatment, happen to them only once in 11 years. To me,
that's "extremely low." See Moritz, W. "Adult Bicyclists in the
United States - Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996,"
presented at the Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting,
1998

> And cycling's numbers are
> only better than those for walking regarding fatalities.

:-) I'm glad you accept that the fatality rate of cyclists is, in
fact, lower than that of pedestrians. (That's per mile _or_ per hour,
folks.)

> Cyclists have a far higher rate of injury than pedestrians.

Robert and I have gone around and around on these points. IIRC, he has
not commented on the research paper "Injury Rates form Walking,
Gardening, Weighlifting, Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics" by Kenneth
E. Powell et. al., in _Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise_, 1998,
V. 30 pp. 1246-1249.

Random phone surveys of over 5200 subjects asked about their activities
and their injuries in the past 30 days. Of those responding, 2.4% of
the weightlifters had injured themselves; 1.6% of those who gardened;
1.4% of those who did aerobics; 1.4% of those who walked for exercise;
and 0.9% of those who biked.

Yes, the injury rate for cycling was significantly lower than that for
walkers.

> As a helmet skeptic myself, I wish you would stop
> pushing these deliberately misleading arguments.

I wish you'd explain why you won't accept data that shows cycling to be
safe!

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:47:18
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

You have given us one study based on hospital records and outcomes.
Yet, the respected cochrane collaboration has reviewed five of sounder
methodology. If you insist everyone pays attention to research, then
you should look at the whole picture. Not just the study that proves
your point.

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:33:48 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> > <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dd9vf2dvbqmk292vas7fnqn4v6psvclhni@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> >>> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking
> >>>> for many years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was
> >>>> not wearing a helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I
> >>>> didn't die.
> >>>>
> >>>> When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head
> >>>> from getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a
> >>>> helmet. Then again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up
> >>>> presentable without sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding
> >>>> for exercise I do wear a helmet. But then again, at that point I'm
> >>>> really not worried about looking good.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What will you do when a helmet law is passed?
> >>
> >> Exactly what they expect people to do, drive.
> >>
> >
> > Pity that we have people like Ozark and Bill promoting MHL's then.
>
> Cite please? LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 22:45:28
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:
> You have given us one study based on hospital records and outcomes.
> Yet, the respected cochrane collaboration has reviewed five of sounder
> methodology. If you insist everyone pays attention to research, then
> you should look at the whole picture. Not just the study that proves
> your point.
>

You replied to the wrong person (me) /and/ you top-posted.

HTH

(BTW, I agree with you.)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 10:53:31
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote in part:
> Point b: The probability of an accident is, indeed, extremely low,
> especially if your son does something radical like actually obeying the
> laws and minding the condition of the road surface. The fearmongering
> regarding bicycling is false. See
> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and check the
> references.
> In fact, cycling's numbers are better than those for walking, at least
> near traffic. (That includes using sidewalks, BTW.)

That's very misleading. The probability of an accident is
nowhere near 'extremely low.' And cycling's numbers are
only better than those for walking regarding fatalities.
Cyclists have a far higher rate of injury than pedestrians.

As a helmet skeptic myself, I wish you would stop
pushing these deliberately misleading arguments.

Robert

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:14:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:55:33
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

It may be true, that the evidence is less than you think. But think
about how difficult it is to conduct a prospective study and all of the
confounding factors involved. In the best designed studies performed
to date, the evidence is CLEAR that helmets substantially reduce the
severity and rate of head injuries due to biking accidents.

Those of us in research rely on the cochrane collaboration to
sumize and critique the literature in certain cases. They recently
performed an analysis of the reserach on helmets. They found 5 case
control studies that met their criteria:

.....Head and brain injury results were also sumized using
meta-analysis techniques. MAIN RESULTS: . This review identified five
well conducted case control studies which met our selection criteria.
Helmets provide a 63%-88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and
severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal
levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and
crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid
facial areas are reduced 65%. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Helmets reduce
bicycle-related head and facial injuries for bicyclists of all ages
involved in all types of crashes including those involving motor
vehicles.......

Yes, there should be more studies. But I don't think it's responsible
for a few uninformed people to dissuade helmet use in cyclists based on
nothing but intuition. Read the research. The cochrane collaboration
is extensively used and respected throughout medicine.

I HATE helmets. And there are times where I feel that it impedes my
riding or even my ability to avoid an accident. But accidents aren't
about you necessarily. No one controls what the car or the animal or
whatever other wild card will do. Helmets help in that case.

Perhaps a few hours of working with someone who has a traumatic brain
injury would change your minds. One day you are fine, and then the
next, you can't speak, eat or even clean yourself after going to
bathroom (depending on severity). It is sobering.

mcap

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:57:31
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 7 Sep 2006 09:55:33 -0700, mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>Perhaps a few hours of working with someone who has a traumatic brain
>injury would change your minds. One day you are fine, and then the
>next, you can't speak, eat or even clean yourself after going to
>bathroom (depending on severity). It is sobering.
>

Are you going to advocate helmets for walking then? The accident
rates are essentially the same.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:17:06
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 09:55:33 -0700, mcam54@hotmail.com wrote:

{Hey, where'd all the stuff he or she wrote go?!? LOL }

Poster /closed/ with:

>> Perhaps a few hours of working with someone who has a traumatic brain
>> injury would change your minds. One day you are fine, and then the
>> next, you can't speak, eat or even clean yourself after going to
>> bathroom (depending on severity). It is sobering.

> Are you going to advocate helmets for walking then? The accident
> rates are essentially the same.

Classic stuff! Too rich...

LOL ROTFL LOL

(My sides hurt. Stop, please!)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:47:56
From:
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Claire Petersky wrote:
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157599860.369188.326860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Did you really mean " PLEASE don't try to learn anything! " ?
>
>
> If EVERY SINGLE HELMET debate were posted to rec.bicycles.soc, then I'd be
> happy, because then the debate would be on topic there, and off of here. But
> look at how they've polluted rec.bicycles.misc and especially
> rec.bicycles.tech! It's great if you all want to go around the mullberry
> bush one more time, but it's off-topic and BORING BORING BORING. So PLEASE
> do it some place else! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! !!!!!!!
>

Claire, I agree that most helmet discussions belong on r.b.soc; but, as
you know, r.b.soc has largely been hijacked by a crazed
anti-mountain-biker, to the point that it's nearly dead. Folks who
once hung out there are now here - and like it or not, they post to the
group they read.

The solution is fairly simple. Reading posts is voluntary, not
mandatory. Just skip the ones you don't like. Filter if you must.
Killfile if necessary.

I'm not the least interested in my colleagues' discussions of pro
football around the office, but I'd never consider telling them they
should do it only in a different room.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 08 Sep 2006 14:47:59
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157644076.279970.97700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Claire, I agree that most helmet discussions belong on r.b.soc; but, as
> you know, r.b.soc has largely been hijacked by a crazed
> anti-mountain-biker, to the point that it's nearly dead.

If people would actually post things other than MV-related posts in that
newsgroup, maybe it wouldn't be so dead. I'm afraid that the political posts
are killing rbm, and that people have fled to rbt. It's too bad for rbt,
because now *it's* crowded with general bicycling posts and inquiries,
instead of just being "tech". If I were a hard-core rbt'er, I'd be upset
about it.

> The solution is fairly simple. Reading posts is voluntary, not
> mandatory. Just skip the ones you don't like.

It's one thing when helmets are in the thread title. It's another when so
many other threads that weren't originally about helmets become, once again,
the rehash of the same old arguments and attacks. I end up reading these
because I'm hoping for some original and interesting content. Poor me.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:39:39
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Artoi wrote:
> In article <1157599321.220965.131420@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He's correct on point c, as well. One study of about 20 cycling deaths
> > in Aukland, NZ (i.e. all the fatalities in the time period under study)
> > found that all of the non-helmeted cyclists died of multiple injuries,
> > not simple head injuries, so helmets would not have saved them. Only
> > one cyclist died of simple head injury, and he was helmeted. (Sage M,
> > Cairns F, Koelmeyer T, Smeeton W. Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in
> > Auckland. N Z Med J. 1985;98:1073-4.)
>
> Small sample, and sub-selected group. Those who wore helmet and had an
> impact may have been protected and therefore won't need to attend the
> hospital. You have to look at the study design. One study does not a
> bible make.

Trust me, I have indeed looked at study design, in many studies.

The pro-helmet study that is almost always quoted, the one that claims
"85% benefit" for helmets, compared a small number of white, middle
class kids riding mostly on bike paths, mostly with their parents, who
fell mostly on soft surfaces, and wore helmets; versus mostly minority
kids riding on city streets falling on hard surfaces without helmets.
Conclusion? _Helmets_ made the difference in injuries. Never mind the
fact that the first group probably had much better insurance coverage.
And never mind the fact that the same calculation techniques they used
"prove" that helmets prevent about 75% of leg injuries as well. And
never mind the fact that, comparing helmeted percentage of their ER
presentations to helmeted percentages of cyclists from street counts,
it's obvious that people with helmets show up at ER much more often
than people without.

Your "protected people don't show up at the hospital" idea has also
been neatly disproven by other studies. For example, a research team
in New Zealand tracked hospital records for all hospitalized NZ
cyclists over many years, to see what percentage were admitted because
of head injury. Since helmet use had recently tripled (to about 90%
for kids) they wanted to demonstrate the decrease in percentage
admitted due to head injury - IOW, the evidence that protected people
were not showing up at the hospital. But despite multiple attempts at
number crunching, they came up with only one result: there was no
detectable benefit from helmet use. That's in Scuffham, P.A., Langley,
J. D., Trend in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet
Use, 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1. Ask your
librarian to get it.

If you haven't read many studies on this issue, you should do so before
posting. At least you'll be up on the current state of knowledge. Try
www.cyclehelmets.org as a place to start.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:22:33
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

> trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
> whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

When I was a teenager, my mom took a corner too fast, encountered some
loose gravel and down she went. Her head hit the curb, splitting her
helmet. She broke her hip. Her head was just fine.

So I now always wear a helmet when I ride.

But I don't think it should be mandatory.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:21:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

SparkoHeaps@gmail.com wrote:
>> trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
>> whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.
>
> When I was a teenager, my mom took a corner too fast, encountered some
> loose gravel and down she went. Her head hit the curb, splitting her
> helmet. She broke her hip. Her head was just fine.
>
> So I now always wear a helmet when I ride.
>
> But I don't think it should be mandatory.

Stop being truthful and ever worse reasonable. We'll have none of that!

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:17:20
From: mark
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/index.html

This website was put together by a long time contributor to
uk.rec.cycling. It should give you and your son plenty of food for thought.
k

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:20:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

k wrote:
> http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/index.html
>
> This website was put together by a long time contributor to
> uk.rec.cycling. It should give you and your son plenty of food for
> thought. k

No bias there! LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 07:13:53
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 05:17:39
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:14:07
From: Jim Higson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

> So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts.

One point that is hardly ever raised: I sometimes ride a path with overgrown
trees on both sides. This doesn't say anything about serious injuries, but
a helmet is useful to bat small branches out of the way. I wouldn't do that
with my bare head! It certainly saves me some small cuts and minor
bruising.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 11:21:46
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <7cCdnUAL0dZSSWLZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk >,
Jim Higson <jh@333.org > wrote:

> > So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts.
>
> One point that is hardly ever raised: I sometimes ride a path with overgrown
> trees on both sides. This doesn't say anything about serious injuries, but
> a helmet is useful to bat small branches out of the way. I wouldn't do that
> with my bare head! It certainly saves me some small cuts and minor
> bruising.

On a similar note, in early spring, magpies likes to skydive and poke on
passing human beings, including cyclists, from behind. A helmet helps.
--

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:09:31
From: Kevan Smith
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <1157594127.045677.187090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

<snip >

Most obvious trolls ever for $500 please, Alex.

--
Vegan Reich!
http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:43:32
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

> > Odds are that you live in California - is this right?
>
> I SMELL A TROLL AND/OR A SOCK-PUPPET.
>
> Anyone else?

If you mean me, I am neither. I'm not a regular in this group, so I had
no idea the helmet debate had a history here. I didn't even really know
there was that much of a debate.

Yes, I live in California. Thanks to everyone for your input.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:21:39
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 6 Sep 2006 23:43:32 -0700, jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>
>> > Odds are that you live in California - is this right?
>>
>> I SMELL A TROLL AND/OR A SOCK-PUPPET.
>>
>> Anyone else?
>
>If you mean me, I am neither. I'm not a regular in this group, so I had
>no idea the helmet debate had a history here. I didn't even really know
>there was that much of a debate.
>
>Yes, I live in California. Thanks to everyone for your input.

I thought so - just based on the numbers. California requires
something more than 10 million of its residents to wear helmets while
cycling, and you wrote that there was an MHL where you live.

Don't worry about Bill calling you a troll; he and the other pro-MHL
zealots are usually much more abusive.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:28:16
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 6 Sep 2006 18:55:27 -0700, jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

>My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
>believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
>helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
>the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
>has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
>entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
>not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
>to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
>right).
>

Odds are that you live in California - is this right?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:09:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 18:55:27 -0700, jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets.
>> I believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet)
>> that helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of
>> injury in the event of an accident. My son believes this is a
>> misconception that has never been proven, and that it is being
>> strongly advanced by entities with a vested interest, such as helmet
>> manufacturers. He does not think that the mere existence of helmet
>> laws constitutes a reason to always wear one ("There are plenty of
>> bad laws," he says, and he is right).
>>
>
> Odds are that you live in California - is this right?

I SMELL A TROLL AND/OR A SOCK-PUPPET.

Anyone else?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:13:21
From: Roger Houston
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:KIOLg.409$xg7.28@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>
>> Odds are that you live in California - is this right?
>
> I SMELL A TROLL AND/OR A SOCK-PUPPET.
>
> Anyone else?

My money is on the "and".

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:21:37
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <1157602397.330938.235090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"DC1999" <dc1999@gmail.com > writes:

> If you haven't gotten a few road apples along the way,
^^^^^^^^^^^
> including a few to your head and scalp, then you aren't very serious.

Eeewwwww!!

Thank Goodness I'm not that serious.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:16:38
From: DC1999
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Huh???

Bill Sornson wrote:
> DC1999 wrote:
> > I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
> > even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
> > (and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
> > have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
> > helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the
> > few short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but
> > never on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home
> > community with private streets).
> >
> > One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
> > locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
> > and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
> > been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
> > head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
> > I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
> > involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
> > to ride again.
> >
> > The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San
> > Francisco street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the
> > street at the wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my
> > starting point (near Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my
> > motorhome. The helmet was badly damaged and had a very large, 1"
> > crack in the side where it had struck the street. Imagine if that
> > had been my head!!! I kept that damaged helmet just to show people
> > what kind of protection it had offerred. There was no traffic at all
> > (this was an industrial area on Saturday morning), and fortunately a
> > passing off-duty police officer helped me get back on my feet so I
> > could at least ride back to where I was staying. I recall feeling
> > tired when I got back so decided to lay down for a time, and woke up
> > two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had sustained at least a mild
> > concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as I know. That
> > afternoon I bought a new helmet.
> >
> > I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
> > started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when
> > your head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or
> > whatever. My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases,
> > and the solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection
> > against head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear
> > them? The answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military
> > types wear helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because
> > some manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers
> > wear helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and
> > I'll bet a survey of those types will disclose any number who've been
> > struck by such things.
> >
> > Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!
> >
> > Dave
>
> Sorry, Dave. Personal experience and common sense have no standing with
> regard to this subject. Persist with your well-reasoned opinion and you
> will be flamed and shamed.
>
> (Thankfully, this is RBMisc. Treatment will be /slightly/ gentler than in
> RBT.)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:08:00
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

DC1999 wrote:
> Huh???

You'll see. (Top-poster.)

{snip}

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:13:17
From: DC1999
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

One other point deserves mention. Neither of my "accidents" got
reported to any public agency, so neither would show up in any research
or survey of public data. But I can guarantee each of you that my
helmet protected me from further, more serious injury than in fact was
done to my body and brain. That's enough evidence for me to keep
wearing the helmet, and I venture that there are many, many other
serious cyclists who could offer the same sort of evidence from their
own experience. If you haven't gotten a few road apples along the way,
including a few to your head and scalp, then you aren't very serious.

Dave
DC1999 wrote:
> I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
> even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
> (and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
> have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
> helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the few
> short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but never
> on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home community
> with private streets).
>
> One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
> locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
> and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
> been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
> head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
> I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
> involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
> to ride again.
>
> The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San Francisco
> street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the street at the
> wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my starting point (near
> Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my motorhome. The helmet was
> badly damaged and had a very large, 1" crack in the side where it had
> struck the street. Imagine if that had been my head!!! I kept that
> damaged helmet just to show people what kind of protection it had
> offerred. There was no traffic at all (this was an industrial area on
> Saturday morning), and fortunately a passing off-duty police officer
> helped me get back on my feet so I could at least ride back to where I
> was staying. I recall feeling tired when I got back so decided to lay
> down for a time, and woke up two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had
> sustained at least a mild concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as
> I know. That afternoon I bought a new helmet.
>
> I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
> started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when your
> head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or whatever.
> My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases, and the
> solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection against
> head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear them? The
> answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military types wear
> helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because some
> manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers wear
> helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and I'll bet a
> survey of those types will disclose any number who've been struck by
> such things.
>
> Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> > My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> > believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> > helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> > the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> > has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
> > entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
> > not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
> > to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
> > right).
> >
> > He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
> > helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
> > believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
> > objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
> > trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
> > he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
> > accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
> > RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
> > the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.
> >
> > In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
> > (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
> > consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
> > risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
> > as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
> > trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
> > whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.
> >
> > So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
> > you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.
> >
> > Thanks.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for many
years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.

When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head from
getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.

If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a helmet. Then
again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up presentable without
sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding for exercise I do wear a helmet.
But then again, at that point I'm really not worried about looking good.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:10:04
From: Peter Miller
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:HoNLg.16391$%j7.8074@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head from
> getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.

Anyone else notice they tend to hit their head more on unseen objects, when
wearing helmets, hardhats or baseball caps? The peak on the front tends to
hide overhead objects from view.

We have had compulsory helmet laws here for more than 15 years and I wear
one and don't even think about it much anymore. I used to think making
cycling helmets compulsory was a good thing, but now conclude their benefit
is dubious at best.

Peter Miller
Newcastle AU

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:12:05
From: Roger Houston
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:HoNLg.16391$%j7.8074@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for many
> years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
> helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.

Cite, please.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:52:22
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
<cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for many
>years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
>helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.
>
>When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head from
>getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.
>
>If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a helmet. Then
>again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up presentable without
>sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding for exercise I do wear a helmet.
>But then again, at that point I'm really not worried about looking good.
>

What will you do when a helmet law is passed?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:33:48
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

<jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:dd9vf2dvbqmk292vas7fnqn4v6psvclhni@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for
many
> >years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
> >helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.
> >
> >When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head from
> >getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.
> >
> >If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a helmet.
Then
> >again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up presentable without
> >sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding for exercise I do wear a
helmet.
> >But then again, at that point I'm really not worried about looking good.
> >
>
> What will you do when a helmet law is passed?

Exactly what they expect people to do, drive.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:32:30
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:33:48 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
<cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
>news:dd9vf2dvbqmk292vas7fnqn4v6psvclhni@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
>> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking for
>many
>> >years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was not wearing a
>> >helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I didn't die.
>> >
>> >When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head from
>> >getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.
>> >
>> >If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a helmet.
>Then
>> >again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up presentable without
>> >sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding for exercise I do wear a
>helmet.
>> >But then again, at that point I'm really not worried about looking good.
>> >
>>
>> What will you do when a helmet law is passed?
>
>Exactly what they expect people to do, drive.
>

Pity that we have people like Ozark and Bill promoting MHL's then.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:18:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:33:48 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
>> news:dd9vf2dvbqmk292vas7fnqn4v6psvclhni@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
>>> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, if we are going with personal experiences, I've been biking
>>>> for many years. I've hit my head on pavement exactly once. I was
>>>> not wearing a helmet, nor was I on a bike, I was jogging. I
>>>> didn't die.
>>>>
>>>> When riding on the back of the tandem my helmet has saved my head
>>>> from getting hit by low hanging branches I didn't see coming.
>>>>
>>>> If I'm riding my bike as transportation I tend not to wear a
>>>> helmet. Then again, I'm not riding fast, as I'm trying to show up
>>>> presentable without sweat stains or helmet hair. If I'm riding
>>>> for exercise I do wear a helmet. But then again, at that point I'm
>>>> really not worried about looking good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What will you do when a helmet law is passed?
>>
>> Exactly what they expect people to do, drive.
>>
>
> Pity that we have people like Ozark and Bill promoting MHL's then.

Cite please? LOL

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:57:20
From: DC1999
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
(and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the few
short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but never
on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home community
with private streets).

One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
to ride again.

The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San Francisco
street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the street at the
wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my starting point (near
Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my motorhome. The helmet was
badly damaged and had a very large, 1" crack in the side where it had
struck the street. Imagine if that had been my head!!! I kept that
damaged helmet just to show people what kind of protection it had
offerred. There was no traffic at all (this was an industrial area on
Saturday morning), and fortunately a passing off-duty police officer
helped me get back on my feet so I could at least ride back to where I
was staying. I recall feeling tired when I got back so decided to lay
down for a time, and woke up two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had
sustained at least a mild concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as
I know. That afternoon I bought a new helmet.

I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when your
head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or whatever.
My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases, and the
solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection against
head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear them? The
answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military types wear
helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because some
manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers wear
helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and I'll bet a
survey of those types will disclose any number who've been struck by
such things.

Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!

Dave

jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
> entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
> not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
> to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
> right).
>
> He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
> helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
> believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
> objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
> trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
> he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
> accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
> RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
> the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.
>
> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
> (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
> consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
> risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
> as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
> trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
> whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.
>
> So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
> you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.
>
> Thanks.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:33:49
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 6 Sep 2006 20:57:20 -0700, "DC1999" <dc1999@gmail.com > wrote:

>I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
>even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
>(and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
>have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
>helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the few
>short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but never
>on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home community
>with private streets).
>
>One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
>locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
>and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
>been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
>head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
>I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
>involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
>to ride again.
>
>The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San Francisco
>street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the street at the
>wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my starting point (near
>Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my motorhome. The helmet was
>badly damaged and had a very large, 1" crack in the side where it had
>struck the street. Imagine if that had been my head!!! I kept that
>damaged helmet just to show people what kind of protection it had
>offerred. There was no traffic at all (this was an industrial area on
>Saturday morning), and fortunately a passing off-duty police officer
>helped me get back on my feet so I could at least ride back to where I
>was staying. I recall feeling tired when I got back so decided to lay
>down for a time, and woke up two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had
>sustained at least a mild concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as
>I know. That afternoon I bought a new helmet.
>
>I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
>started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when your
>head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or whatever.
>My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases, and the
>solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection against
>head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear them? The
>answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military types wear
>helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because some
>manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers wear
>helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and I'll bet a
>survey of those types will disclose any number who've been struck by
>such things.
>
>Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!
>
>

Are you sure it was the helmet?

Perhaps you were wearing the same shirt each time. Was it blue? We've
had a poster with essentially the same anecdotal level of reasoning
following cycle mishaps conclude that it was the blue shirt that he
was wearing that saved him from seroius head injury.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:05:23
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

DC1999 wrote:
> I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
> even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
> (and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
> have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
> helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the
> few short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but
> never on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home
> community with private streets).
>
> One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
> locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
> and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
> been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
> head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
> I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
> involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
> to ride again.
>
> The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San
> Francisco street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the
> street at the wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my
> starting point (near Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my
> motorhome. The helmet was badly damaged and had a very large, 1"
> crack in the side where it had struck the street. Imagine if that
> had been my head!!! I kept that damaged helmet just to show people
> what kind of protection it had offerred. There was no traffic at all
> (this was an industrial area on Saturday morning), and fortunately a
> passing off-duty police officer helped me get back on my feet so I
> could at least ride back to where I was staying. I recall feeling
> tired when I got back so decided to lay down for a time, and woke up
> two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had sustained at least a mild
> concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as I know. That
> afternoon I bought a new helmet.
>
> I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
> started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when
> your head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or
> whatever. My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases,
> and the solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection
> against head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear
> them? The answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military
> types wear helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because
> some manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers
> wear helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and
> I'll bet a survey of those types will disclose any number who've been
> struck by such things.
>
> Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!
>
> Dave

Sorry, Dave. Personal experience and common sense have no standing with
regard to this subject. Persist with your well-reasoned opinion and you
will be flamed and shamed.

(Thankfully, this is RBMisc. Treatment will be /slightly/ gentler than in
RBT.)

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:31:00
From:
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Claire Petersky wrote:
>
>
> Further, we've all read the arguments about 50 trillion times, that is, if
> we haven't killfiled all those stupid helmet threads after reading them the
> first 7 million times we started reading the bicycle newsgroups. They often
> disintegrate into insults and ad hominem attacks. They also unfortunately
> take over other threads -- see the "better than bells" thread just recently
> started by Pat Lamb that has a helmet debate already sucking out its
> lifeblood.
>
> Please say NO to helmet threads. Don't start them, and god help us, don't
> participate in them once underway.

Did you really mean " PLEASE don't try to learn anything! " ?

I agree that certain helmet thread participants frequently descend into
abuse. But it's wrong to think that there is nothing new contributed.
Studies are still being done and published in reputable journals, new
evidence is being uncovered, serious discussion takes place around the
mindless abuse posts, and people's minds are changing.

Styrofoam hats are an odd choice of topic to anoint with the oil of
dogma.

Besides, won't that oil degrade the styrofoam? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:02:07
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157599860.369188.326860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Did you really mean " PLEASE don't try to learn anything! " ?

If EVERY SINGLE HELMET debate were posted to rec.bicycles.soc, then I'd be
happy, because then the debate would be on topic there, and off of here. But
look at how they've polluted rec.bicycles.misc and especially
rec.bicycles.tech! It's great if you all want to go around the mullberry
bush one more time, but it's off-topic and BORING BORING BORING. So PLEASE
do it some place else! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! !!!!!!!

(sorry for shouting)

Thank you for asking.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:38:33
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> If EVERY SINGLE HELMET debate were posted to rec.bicycles.soc, then I'd be
> happy, because then the debate would be on topic there, and off of here. But
> look at how they've polluted rec.bicycles.misc and especially
> rec.bicycles.tech! It's great if you all want to go around the mullberry
> bush one more time, but it's off-topic and BORING BORING BORING. So PLEASE
> do it some place else! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! !!!!!!!

Dear Dona Quixote, (how the heck do you get a tilde, anyway?)

Is that a windmill over there?

I share your frustration. The only chance to win this battle is to post
more relevant things, like what we shout while cycling, or how good a
shower feels afterwards.

Oh, and killfiles. Mine's about to get another entry. Or two. The
most wonderful thing about Agent is the 30-day killfile entries.

Which is worse, blonde women talking on cell phones while driving
enormous SUVs or jerks hijacking otherwise useful threads and
cross-posting about helmets to r.b.t.?

Wonder if there's a way to hook up an Air Zound through the usenet tubes
(see Doonesbury the last week or so) to stun only certain posters?

Pat

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:33:36
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Pat Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote:
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>> If EVERY SINGLE HELMET debate were posted to rec.bicycles.soc, then I'd be
>> happy, because then the debate would be on topic there, and off of here. But
>> look at how they've polluted rec.bicycles.misc and especially
>> rec.bicycles.tech! It's great if you all want to go around the mullberry
>> bush one more time, but it's off-topic and BORING BORING BORING. So PLEASE
>> do it some place else! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! !!!!!!!
>
> Dear Dona Quixote, (how the heck do you get a tilde, anyway?)
>
> Is that a windmill over there?
>
> I share your frustration. The only chance to win this battle is to post
> more relevant things, like what we shout while cycling, or how good a
> shower feels afterwards.

Mmmm, warm showers. Which reminds me, I should go post over in that
thread.

> Oh, and killfiles. Mine's about to get another entry. Or two. The
> most wonderful thing about Agent is the 30-day killfile entries.

Mine has been expanding much more this year than in the past.

> Wonder if there's a way to hook up an Air Zound through the usenet
> tubes (see Doonesbury the last week or so) to stun only certain
> posters?

I've always liked this one:

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/zuvembi/dear_lord.gif

ObBike: Just received the pad for the snapdeck on my Xtracycle. It's a
nice forest green with a yellow pinstripe, and it's nice and
cushy. My daughter was very excited and wanted to go try it out
"Right now!"

BottomSiders, a boat seat cushion place manufacture them in a
place out in Washington, not too far from Seattle. They had the
Xtracycle on file, so I just had them make it up and ship it
out.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have
a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-Dan Quayle

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:37:37
From:
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On 6 Sep 2006 20:31:00 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>
>I agree that certain helmet thread participants frequently descend into
>abuse.

You're being too kind if you consider Sorni - he was abusive from the
word go.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:03:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 20:31:00 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that certain helmet thread participants frequently descend
>> into abuse.
>
> You're being too kind if you consider Sorni - he was abusive from the
> word go.

Stop it. My sides hurt.

ROTFL

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:22:01
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
> entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
> not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
> to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
> right).
>
> He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
> helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
> believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
> objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
> trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
> he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
> accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
> RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
> the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

Sounds like you've raised a very intelligent son.

There is little question that helmet use - or, perhaps more accurately,
forced helmet sales - have been strongly advanced by their
manufacturers. Bell Sports freely admits to having budget for
legislative action, to make their product mandatory. (Can you imagine
the outcry if pharmaceutical companies did that?) Also, they are one
of the major sponsors of Safe Kids Inc, which is one of the major
lobbying organizations for mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).

Point b: The probability of an accident is, indeed, extremely low,
especially if your son does something radical like actually obeying the
laws and minding the condition of the road surface. The fearmongering
regarding bicycling is false. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and check the
references.
In fact, cycling's numbers are better than those for walking, at least
near traffic. (That includes using sidewalks, BTW.)

He's correct on point c, as well. One study of about 20 cycling deaths
in Aukland, NZ (i.e. all the fatalities in the time period under study)
found that all of the non-helmeted cyclists died of multiple injuries,
not simple head injuries, so helmets would not have saved them. Only
one cyclist died of simple head injury, and he was helmeted. (Sage M,
Cairns F, Koelmeyer T, Smeeton W. Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in
Auckland. N Z Med J. 1985;98:1073-4.)

He's apparently wrong on item d, however. Data from several studies
indicates helmeted cyclists are _more_ likely to crash and hit their
heads. Explanations are still being worked out, but it looks like a
combination of risk compensation (google it) and the helmeted head
simply being a bigger target, so to speak.

Overall, despite the intense promotion, radical fearmongering, and
existence of laws, helmets have not been shown to increase bicycling
safety in any significant way. The New York Times had a major article
on this a few years ago. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b63eec01188.htm

The helmet skeptic viewpoint gets little publicity - probably because
there's little money to be made by _not_ selling helmets. But studies
and data showing negligible benefit keep popping up. Also common are
papers that blatantly miscalculate or misinterpret their results,
trying to find benefit. Visit www.cyclehelmets.org for lots of data
and sources.

Another excellent source is
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Cycle_Helmets?OpenDocument
(or http://tinyurl.com/oqala) and its sub-pages, esp. the "maxi-FAQ".

There's no shortage of numbers-out-of-context, helmet promotion sites.
I'll let you find those on your own. You can decide which point of
view is stronger.

Incidentally, there was a time I was convinced that bike helmets were
such a good idea that I actually helped promote them. But once I
started reading the research and discussions on the research, I became
skeptical. The more I learned, the less I believed in the utility of
bike helmets, until I turned completely around. I now believe they're
mostly a scam. And that's been the general trend among people who have
actually studied this issue in depth.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:09:24
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <1157599321.220965.131420@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> He's correct on point c, as well. One study of about 20 cycling deaths
> in Aukland, NZ (i.e. all the fatalities in the time period under study)
> found that all of the non-helmeted cyclists died of multiple injuries,
> not simple head injuries, so helmets would not have saved them. Only
> one cyclist died of simple head injury, and he was helmeted. (Sage M,
> Cairns F, Koelmeyer T, Smeeton W. Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in
> Auckland. N Z Med J. 1985;98:1073-4.)

Small sample, and sub-selected group. Those who wore helmet and had an
impact may have been protected and therefore won't need to attend the
hospital. You have to look at the study design. One study does not a
bible make.
--

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:06:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:10:57
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:42:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets.
>> I believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet)
>> that helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of
>> injury in the event of an accident. My son believes this is a
>> misconception that has never been proven, and that it is being
>> strongly advanced by entities with a vested interest, such as helmet
>> manufacturers. He does not think that the mere existence of helmet
>> laws constitutes a reason to always wear one ("There are plenty of
>> bad laws," he says, and he is right).
>>
>> He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
>> helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience),
>> but believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
>> objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every
>> single trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely
>> low, (b) he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability
>> of an accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such
>> as being RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway,
>> (d) wearing the helmet does not change the probability of an
>> accident happening.
>>
>> In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two
>> approaches: (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show
>> whether consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly
>> reduce the risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident
>> -- so much so as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on
>> each and every trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and
>> bike enthiasts whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every
>> trip, and why.
>>
>> So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also,
>> if you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a
>> link.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Dear J.,
>
> Here's a good place to start:
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument

LOL

Q. I'd like to read some objective material about current political issues.

A. Try MoveOn.Org or HowardDeanScreams.com. LOTS of material!

Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:13:02
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <1157594127.045677.187090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> the event of an accident.

It's hard to get a real life study but they are out there. The most
convincing are those engineering test. It's just simple logic that some
well designed padding is better than no padding in a collision.

In an impact, if your son doesn't get a skull fracture, then he might
lose some scalp. Hairless can be trendy to some kids! :D

Don't know about where you are, but at many places, it's the law to wear
helmet.
--

Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:54:55
From: Fred
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

<jacobson.avi@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157594127.045677.187090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> has never been proven,

In which case it is a conception. Common sense suggests that some injuries
will be prevented, and some will be minimised. It doesn't need any research
beyond gazing at the thing to realise it must provide some protection.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:30:14
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:54:55 +1200, "Fred" <fred@parachute.uk.master >
wrote:

>
><jacobson.avi@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1157594127.045677.187090@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
>> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
>> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
>> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
>> has never been proven,
>
>In which case it is a conception. Common sense suggests that some injuries
>will be prevented, and some will be minimised. It doesn't need any research
>beyond gazing at the thing to realise it must provide some protection.
>

Unfortunately, common sense is wrong in this case.

Bill Sornson will soon enough give you an example.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:52:56
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson wrote:

> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live? Whe=
re
> is this?

California Bicycle Helmet Statute
VEHICLE CODE
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES

"=A7 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in conformance
with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty collections

(a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride
upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in
Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public
bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted
and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standard), the
Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in
Bicycling, or the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447
standard). This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a
bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or
in a trailer towed by the bicycle."

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:58:20
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live?
>> Where is this?
>
> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
> VEHICLE CODE
> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>
> "� 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in conformance
> with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty collections
>
> (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or
> ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as
> defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any
> other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a
> properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards
> of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle
> helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for
> Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society for
> Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also
> applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining
> seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the
> bicycle."

It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he should
wear a lid based on your own criteria.

Bill "trollsniff alert" S.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 05:46:25
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>> VEHICLE CODE
>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>
<snipped - law text >
>
> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he should
> wear a lid based on your own criteria.

I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
otherwise citable for any offense.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The Government just announced today the creation of the Neutron Bomb II.
Similar to the Neutron Bomb, the Neutron Bomb II not only kills people
and leaves buildings standing, but also does a little light housekeeping.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:16:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Dane Buson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>>> VEHICLE CODE
>>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>>
> <snipped - law text>
>>
>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>
> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
> That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
> do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
> otherwise citable for any offense.

I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?) riding all
over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets while skateboarding
than cycling.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 10:43:51
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>
>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
>> That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
>> do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
>> otherwise citable for any offense.
>
> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?) riding all
> over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets while skateboarding
> than cycling.

Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans helmet.
And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it. But pretty much
every time it was just an excuse for the cop to hassle them. It's
enforced at whim, which makes it a *terrible* law.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"This universe never did make sense, I suspect it was built on
government contract." -Zebediah J. Carter

Date: 07 Sep 2006 20:02:31
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:43:51 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote:

>Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>>>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>
>>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
>>> That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
>>> do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
>>> otherwise citable for any offense.
>>
>> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?) riding all
>> over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets while skateboarding
>> than cycling.
>
>Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans helmet.
>And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it.

But Bill Sornson says that this law is _never_ enforced. You must be
wrong - facts always are wrong when they disagree with his personal
experience...

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:16:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:43:51 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced
>>>> capriciously. That is what has happened here in King County. It's
>>>> another feel-good do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to
>>>> harass people who are not otherwise citable for any offense.
>>>
>>> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?)
>>> riding all over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets
>>> while skateboarding than cycling.
>>
>> Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans
>> helmet. And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it.
>
> But Bill Sornson says that this law is _never_ enforced. You must be
> wrong - facts always are wrong when they disagree with his personal
> experience...

Right above this -- it's still /right there/ -- I said "I can only go by
what I see in San Diego".

Stop lying about me, liar. You lie.

Liar.

HTH

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:49:07
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:16:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:43:51 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced
>>>>> capriciously. That is what has happened here in King County. It's
>>>>> another feel-good do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to
>>>>> harass people who are not otherwise citable for any offense.
>>>>
>>>> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?)
>>>> riding all over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets
>>>> while skateboarding than cycling.
>>>
>>> Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans
>>> helmet. And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it.
>>
>> But Bill Sornson says that this law is _never_ enforced. You must be
>> wrong - facts always are wrong when they disagree with his personal
>> experience...
>
>Right above this -- it's still /right there/ -- I said "I can only go by
>what I see in San Diego".
>
>Stop lying about me, liar. You lie.
>

Learn to count.

You stated that the law was "never enforced" several posts before you
used the phrase "only go by what I see in San Diego". This is, of
course, shown by the number of quote ks that preceed each
quotation. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:57:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:16:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:43:51 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide
>>>>>>> whether he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced
>>>>>> capriciously. That is what has happened here in King County.
>>>>>> It's another feel-good do-nothing law that is used as a pretext
>>>>>> to harass people who are not otherwise citable for any offense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?)
>>>>> riding all over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use
>>>>> helmets while skateboarding than cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans
>>>> helmet. And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it.
>>>
>>> But Bill Sornson says that this law is _never_ enforced. You must
>>> be wrong - facts always are wrong when they disagree with his
>>> personal experience...
>>
>> Right above this -- it's still /right there/ -- I said "I can only
>> go by what I see in San Diego".
>>
>> Stop lying about me, liar. You lie.
>>
>
> Learn to count.
>
> You stated that the law was "never enforced" several posts before you
> used the phrase "only go by what I see in San Diego". This is, of
> course, shown by the number of quote ks that preceed each
> quotation. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

Learn to read. That was about a CHILD law. Then someone said the law
/where he is/ is used as a pretext for hassling people -- presumably adult
people. He then says he knows people (again, presumably adults) who've been
ticketed.

I'll give you this: all this is still right in this post -- for once you
didn't delete stuff and then bag on it! Just read from top to bottom and
you'll get the picture (he said hopefully).

I see no evidence that this so-called law is enforced in my riding area.
Whether it is elsewhere, while I doubt it, I don't know. Clear enough?

Sorno

Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:17:29
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:57:09 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>I see no evidence that this so-called law is enforced in my riding area.
>Whether it is elsewhere, while I doubt it, I don't know. Clear enough?
>

So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they are not enforced upon you?

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:24:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:57:09 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>> I see no evidence that this so-called law is enforced in my riding
>> area. Whether it is elsewhere, while I doubt it, I don't know.
>> Clear enough?
>>
>
> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they are not enforced upon you?

So you've stopped stealing from your employer?

(Hey, you're right! These question k things allow you to say anything!
Cool!)

You still mastu---- nah, don't wanna know.

LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:13:21
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Dane Buson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>
>>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced
>>> capriciously. That is what has happened here in King County. It's
>>> another feel-good do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to
>>> harass people who are not otherwise citable for any offense.

>> I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?)
>> riding all over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets
>> while skateboarding than cycling.

> Err, that's rather my point. I see lots of people riding sans helmet.
> And I do know people who've gotten tickets for it. But pretty much
> every time it was just an excuse for the cop to hassle them. It's
> enforced at whim, which makes it a *terrible* law.

Err, I was commenting on CA's /child/ MHL, evidence of which I've never seen
even once here in SD. I don't doubt that /adult/ MHLs are "enforced" as you
suggest (that is, willy-nilly and usually with some hidden or not-so-hidden
agenda).

I wear a helmet because I believe it's a st and prudent thing to do, NOT
because I'm /supposed/ to. May it ever be thus.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:32:22
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:16:02 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Dane Buson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>>>> VEHICLE CODE
>>>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>>>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>>>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>>>
>> <snipped - law text>
>>>
>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>
>> I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
>> That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
>> do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
>> otherwise citable for any offense.
>
>I can only go by what I see in San Diego: many kids (50% or so?) riding all
>over the place lidless. More of 'em seem to use helmets while skateboarding
>than cycling.
>

State law, 2003.

Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.

So far.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:45:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

> State law, 2003.
>
> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>
> So far.

When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days when
"consumer protection" was king.

That it's been rubber-stamped approved in the years since does not mean it's
considered a current, active law. (If it were, then the cops would be
stopping kids all over the place and issuing "fix it" notes to the parents.
They're not -- at least down here, that is.)

You're just fear-mongering to support your irrational zealotry.

It's weak.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:56:08
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:45:52 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>> State law, 2003.
>>
>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>
>> So far.
>
>When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days when
>"consumer protection" was king.
>
>That it's been rubber-stamped approved in the years since does not mean it's
>considered a current, active law. (If it were, then the cops would be
>stopping kids all over the place and issuing "fix it" notes to the parents.
>They're not -- at least down here, that is.)
>

So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 17:13:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:45:52 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>
>>> State law, 2003.
>>>
>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>
>>> So far.
>>
>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
>> when "consumer protection" was king.
>>
>> That it's been rubber-stamped approved in the years since does not
>> mean it's considered a current, active law. (If it were, then the
>> cops would be stopping kids all over the place and issuing "fix it"
>> notes to the parents. They're not -- at least down here, that is.)
>>
>
> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?

Where did I say that? (Be specific.)

"Cite, please." LOL (Might be the first time that's ever been written in
the SAME POST that prompted the "accusation"! LOL again!)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 20:01:13
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:13:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:45:52 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> State law, 2003.
>>>>
>>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>>
>>>> So far.
>>>
>>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state days
>>> when "consumer protection" was king.
>>>
>>> That it's been rubber-stamped approved in the years since does not
>>> mean it's considered a current, active law. (If it were, then the
>>> cops would be stopping kids all over the place and issuing "fix it"
>>> notes to the parents. They're not -- at least down here, that is.)
>>>
>>
>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?
>
>Where did I say that? (Be specific.)
>

Please read the post again. That little squiggly thing at the end of
the section I wrote is called a "question k". It is used,
naturally enough, to denote a question and thus I was not stating that
you are in favour of MHL's as long as you personally are exempt, but
asking if you are so in favour.

Are you?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:15:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:13:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:45:52 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> State law, 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fourth in a succession of California MHLs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far.
>>>>
>>>> When was it FIRST passed? I'm guessing back in the nanny state
>>>> days when "consumer protection" was king.
>>>>
>>>> That it's been rubber-stamped approved in the years since does not
>>>> mean it's considered a current, active law. (If it were, then the
>>>> cops would be stopping kids all over the place and issuing "fix it"
>>>> notes to the parents. They're not -- at least down here, that is.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as you personally are exempt?
>>
>> Where did I say that? (Be specific.)
>>
>
> Please read the post again. That little squiggly thing at the end of
> the section I wrote is called a "question k".

Have you stopped beating your wife?

You still stealing from the office till?

You still in favor of MHLs?!?

HTH

Date: 07 Sep 2006 13:53:46
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 05:46:25 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote:

>Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>>> VEHICLE CODE
>>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>>
><snipped - law text>
>>
>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he should
>> wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>
>I think it's rather more likely that it will be enforced capriciously.
>That is what has happened here in King County. It's another feel-good
>do-nothing law that is used as a pretext to harass people who are not
>otherwise citable for any offense.

All the more reason for people to be against such laws.

Except Bill and Ozark, they are now on record as being in favour of
MHL's.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:16:56
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 05:46:25 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:

> All the more reason for people to be against such laws.
>
> Except Bill and Ozark, they are now on record as being in favour of
> MHL's.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good stuff.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:29:11
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:58:20 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live?
>>> Where is this?
>>
>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>> VEHICLE CODE
>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>
>> "� 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in conformance
>> with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty collections
>>
>> (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or
>> ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as
>> defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any
>> other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a
>> properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards
>> of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle
>> helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for
>> Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society for
>> Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also
>> applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining
>> seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the
>> bicycle."
>
>It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he should
>wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>

Never?

Cite please.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:58:20 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you
>>>> live? Where is this?
>>>
>>> California Bicycle Helmet Statute
>>> VEHICLE CODE
>>> DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
>>> CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
>>> ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES
>>>
>>> "� 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in
>>> conformance with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty
>>> collections
>>>
>>> (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or
>>> ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as
>>> defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any
>>> other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a
>>> properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards
>>> of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle
>>> helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for
>>> Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society
>>> for Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also
>>> applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining
>>> seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the
>>> bicycle."
>>
>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>
>
> Never?
>
> Cite please.

Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I among
others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.

{blowing tumbleweed wave file goes here}

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:17:04
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he
>>> should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>
>>
>> Never?
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I among
>others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.
>

Cite for that too, please.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:15:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never?
>>>
>>> Cite please.
>>
>> Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I
>> among others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't
>> helmeted.
>>
>
> Cite for that too, please.

Sure. Just Google "lying asswipe, find a quote..." as that's what I
remember writing in reply.

(Unlike people like Floglinson, I don't keep detailed records of my every
little Usenet tiff. If I come upon the thread today, I'll make a point of
pointing it out to you.)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:31:45
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:15:08 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Never?
>>>>
>>>> Cite please.
>>>
>>> Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I
>>> among others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't
>>> helmeted.
>>>
>>
>> Cite for that too, please.
>
>Sure. Just Google "lying asswipe, find a quote..." as that's what I
>remember writing in reply.
>

The only post that that finds is that above.

So again, please provide a cite where I said that you said that

"falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.".

Or are your words on this as empty as those about claiming to be
anti-MHL?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:12:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:15:08 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Never?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite please.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I
>>>> among others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't
>>>> helmeted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cite for that too, please.
>>
>> Sure. Just Google "lying asswipe, find a quote..." as that's what I
>> remember writing in reply.
>>
>
>
> The only post that that finds is that above.
>
> So again, please provide a cite where I said that you said that
>
> "falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.".

Oh, come on Flailor. You say stuff like that all the time. Suddenly you're
shy? LOL
>
>
> Or are your words on this as empty as those about claiming to be
> anti-MHL?

You're getting to me, I must admit. I sure USED to be against 'em! LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:28:11
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:15:08 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether
>>>>>>> he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact) that I
>>>>> among others argue that falls would kill people if they weren't
>>>>> helmeted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cite for that too, please.
>>>
>>> Sure. Just Google "lying asswipe, find a quote..." as that's what I
>>> remember writing in reply.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The only post that that finds is that above.
>>
>> So again, please provide a cite where I said that you said that
>>
>> "falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.".
>
>Oh, come on Flailor. You say stuff like that all the time.

No, I don't.

You say I do.

Cite please.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:41:28
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:15:08 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:05:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide
>>>>>>>> whether he should wear a lid based on your own criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Right after you back up your claim (stated as a fact)
>>>>>> that I among others argue that falls would kill people if they
>>>>>> weren't helmeted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite for that too, please.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Just Google "lying asswipe, find a quote..." as that's what
>>>> I remember writing in reply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only post that that finds is that above.
>>>
>>> So again, please provide a cite where I said that you said that
>>>
>>> "falls would kill people if they weren't helmeted.".
>>
>> Oh, come on Flailor. You say stuff like that all the time.
>
> No, I don't.
>
> You say I do.
>
> Cite please.

Just today you've said "we" favor MHLs. You've said we /promote/ MHLs.
You're just a weasel and a liar.

Buh-bye.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:48:45
From:
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

San Francisco Bay Area, California.

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> > My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
> > believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
> > helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
> > the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
> > has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
> > entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
> > not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
> > to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
> > right).
>
> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live? Where
> is this?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:41:21
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 10 Sep 2006 00:32:16
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:lFLLg.122$rE5.90@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
>> My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
>> believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
>> helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
>> the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
>> has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
>> entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
>> not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
>> to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
>> right).
>
> There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live?
> Where is this?

We have one here in Citrus County, Florida as well. Up to age 16 must wear a
helmet. I do not believe it's enforced at all. Lots of helmetless kids.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:40:25
From:
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Thanks for your response. I am doing the Google research, but an
important part of the research -- as both my son and I agreed -- is to
ask the bikers themselves. I did not realize that this was such a
controversial, hot-button issue until I started researching it. But I
do think that hearing from the bikers themselves is of value.

mrbubl wrote:
> jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:
> > My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. [snip]

> as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
> Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to
> the H word. Their use is subjective and EVERYONE has an opinion. YMMV

Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:17:27
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

In article <1157596825.127522.302110@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
jacobson.avi@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks for your response. I am doing the Google research, but an
> important part of the research -- as both my son and I agreed -- is to
> ask the bikers themselves. I did not realize that this was such a
> controversial, hot-button issue until I started researching it. But I
> do think that hearing from the bikers themselves is of value.

That's simple. If you know it'll protect you, then you'll get used to it
quickly. And with the latest range of cycling helmets, they are light,
comfortable and trendy. There's no reason not to wear it even for
appearance conscious teens.
--

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:31:43
From: Ted
Subject: Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Can of worms?
I started wearing one not because am convinced it reduces the risk of
brain injury so much as I think it might reduce the risk of abrasion.
That is also why I wear gloves, to reduce my risk of hand abrasion. It
would be harder to go to work with the major scrapes.
Ted.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:11:20
From: mrbubl
Subject: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:36:08
From:
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:11:20 GMT, mrbubl <mrbubl@earthlink.net > wrote:

>as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
>Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to
>the H word. Their use is subjective and EVERYONE has an opinion. YMMV

Um, no. Only one side is subjective.

The helmet skeptics use facts. The pro-helmet zealots use "common
sense" and "personal experience" and "I don't care about MHL's as long
as I am exempt".

Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:07:19
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: PLZ NO........Re: Hard facts about helmets and safety?

"mrbubl" <mrbubl@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:cdLLg.7510$bM.2841@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
> Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to the
> H word.

Further, we've all read the arguments about 50 trillion times, that is, if
we haven't killfiled all those stupid helmet threads after reading them the
first 7 million times we started reading the bicycle newsgroups. They often
disintegrate into insults and ad hominem attacks. They also unfortunately
take over other threads -- see the "better than bells" thread just recently
started by Pat Lamb that has a helmet debate already sucking out its
lifeblood.

Please say NO to helmet threads. Don't start them, and god help us, don't
participate in them once underway.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky