Wear that Helmet II .. or not

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 15 May 2007 04:09:19
From: MkTm
Subject: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

Then again ..

Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html

Date: 19 May 2007 06:47:34
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 17, 5:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

> The usual comment is that all long-term studies of serious bicycle
> injuries show a general decline, but rise within the general trend
> when helmet use increases significantly.
>
> That is, the general trend in bicycle injury rates is gently downward,
> but adding helmets raises the rate.
>
> The downward trend, which appears to have no relation to the use or
> non-use of helmets, then resumes its gentle descent from a slightly
> higher point.

This shows a population of riding cyclists (as opposed to garage-
ceiling-bike-hanging bicycle owners) learning that crashing still
hurts, even with a helmet on.

IMS, the oft-quoted "Australian study(ies)" show right about the same
geology: a somewhat steep upward and then downward injury incidence
curve, which goes up for one-to-two years approx. before resuming the
fine and wonderful downward trend it was nicely herding along before
being disturbed.

Doesn't say a lot for helmet contents in some respects but there you
go. --D-y

Date: 17 May 2007 17:58:17
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 17, 3:38 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:55:11 -0400, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> Dear Wayne & Jay,
>
> >> Here's a quick graph showing a different view of the same data:
>
> >>http://i9.tinypic.com/4otix08.jpg
>
> >Hmmm, crashes greatly increased the two years following the MHL, then
> >plummeted. Initial expected idiotic behavior followed by a massive
> >educational campaign to learn the morons something?
>
> >Wayne
>
> Dear Wayne,
>
> The usual comment is that all long-term studies of serious bicycle
> injuries show a general decline, but rise within the general trend
> when helmet use increases significantly.
>
> That is, the general trend in bicycle injury rates is gently downward,
> but adding helmets raises the rate.
>
> The downward trend, which appears to have no relation to the use or
> non-use of helmets, then resumes its gentle descent from a slightly
> higher point.

Except in Portland, where we do things our own way -- and note that
according to a recent survey, we have the lowest incidence of road
rage (the most courteous drivers) in the US, which I believe is
related to the MHL. I'm working on a study to prove that. It could
also be due to the large number of micro-breweries or bad weather
(people are happy to be in cars because they are generally dry
inside). Here is the road rage article. My condolences to those
cyclist in Miami. I think all of the bus drivers in Portland are from
Miami. -- Jay Beattie.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/road.rage.ap/index.html

Date: 18 May 2007 12:32:02
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Jay Beattie wrote:

>
> Except in Portland, where we do things our own way -- and note that
> according to a recent survey, we have the lowest incidence of road
> rage (the most courteous drivers) in the US, which I believe is
> related to the MHL. I'm working on a study to prove that. It could
> also be due to the large number of micro-breweries or bad weather
> (people are happy to be in cars because they are generally dry
> inside). Here is the road rage article. My condolences to those
> cyclist in Miami. I think all of the bus drivers in Portland are from
> Miami. -- Jay Beattie.
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/road.rage.ap/index.html
>

It's hard to put much credence in an opinion survey of road rage. Maybe
Miamians just like the prestige of being number 1. Maybe Miamians just
like to complain about others' driving. Maybe Miamians are smart and
want to keep people from moving there. Maybe Portlanders are too wimpy
to admit there is road rage. Maybe Portlanders are smart and want people
to move there.

Wayne

Date: 18 May 2007 14:44:00
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:32:02 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >
wrote:

>Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>>
>> Except in Portland, where we do things our own way -- and note that
>> according to a recent survey, we have the lowest incidence of road
>> rage (the most courteous drivers) in the US, which I believe is
>> related to the MHL. I'm working on a study to prove that. It could
>> also be due to the large number of micro-breweries or bad weather
>> (people are happy to be in cars because they are generally dry
>> inside). Here is the road rage article. My condolences to those
>> cyclist in Miami. I think all of the bus drivers in Portland are from
>> Miami. -- Jay Beattie.
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/road.rage.ap/index.html
>>
>
>It's hard to put much credence in an opinion survey of road rage. Maybe
>Miamians just like the prestige of being number 1. Maybe Miamians just
>like to complain about others' driving. Maybe Miamians are smart and
>want to keep people from moving there. Maybe Portlanders are too wimpy
>to admit there is road rage. Maybe Portlanders are smart and want people
>to move there.
>
>Wayne

Dear Wayne,

You do my heart good.

The poll results could match reality, but most people in Portland have
never seen Miami traffic, and vice-versa. They tend to repeat whatever
they see on the news or read in their local newspapers.

(The largest identifiable group victims of fatal gunshot wounds in the
U.S. turns out to be older men. Unlike dramatic crimes, routine
suicides don't appear on the front page or the nightly news.)

A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.

But here's a more objective view of how rainy Seattle is compared to
some selected U.S. cities over the last 30 years, sorted by inches of
annual rainfall:

33.65 AUSTIN/CITY, TX
34.81 MILWAUKEE, WI
35.64 TOPEKA, KS
35.85 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
36.27 CHICAGO,IL
37.05 DALLAS-LOVE FIELD, TX
37.07 PORTLAND, OR
37.07 SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA
37.85 PITTSBURGH, PA
--38.25---SEATTLE C.O., WA-------------------
38.71 CLEVELAND, OH
38.75 ST. LOUIS, MO
40.00 SALEM, OR
40.95 INDIANAPOLIS, IN
41.80 WASHINGTON DULLES AP, D.C.
41.94 BALTIMORE, MD
42.05 PHILADELPHIA, PA
42.42 TULSA, OK
42.53 BOSTON, MA
42.60 GREATER CINCINNATI AP
42.81 WILMINGTON, DE
43.91 RICHMOND, VA
45.83 PORTLAND, ME
45.91 LEXINGTON, KY
46.16 HARTFORD, CT
46.25 NEWARK, NJ
46.45 PROVIDENCE, RI
47.84 HOUSTON, TX
49.69 NEW YORK C.PARK, NY
50.20 ATLANTA, GA
50.90 EUGENE, OR
50.93 LITTLE ROCK, AR
51.53 CHARLESTON AP,SC
54.65 MEMPHIS, TN
55.95 JACKSON, MS
57.07 WILMINGTON, NC
58.53 MIAMI, FL
64.16 NEW ORLEANS, LA
66.29 MOBILE, AL

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/nrmpcp.txt

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 18 May 2007 23:41:03
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

In article <lrtr43put7dv7ggpud8mgrt1u68t8f9507@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:32:02 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Except in Portland, where we do things our own way -- and note that
> >> according to a recent survey, we have the lowest incidence of road
> >> rage (the most courteous drivers) in the US, which I believe is
> >> related to the MHL. I'm working on a study to prove that. It could
> >> also be due to the large number of micro-breweries or bad weather
> >> (people are happy to be in cars because they are generally dry
> >> inside). Here is the road rage article. My condolences to those
> >> cyclist in Miami. I think all of the bus drivers in Portland are from
> >> Miami. -- Jay Beattie.
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/road.rage.ap/index.html
> >>
> >
> >It's hard to put much credence in an opinion survey of road rage. Maybe
> >Miamians just like the prestige of being number 1. Maybe Miamians just
> >like to complain about others' driving. Maybe Miamians are smart and
> >want to keep people from moving there. Maybe Portlanders are too wimpy
> >to admit there is road rage. Maybe Portlanders are smart and want people
> >to move there.
> >
> >Wayne
>
> Dear Wayne,
>
> You do my heart good.
>
> The poll results could match reality, but most people in Portland have
> never seen Miami traffic, and vice-versa. They tend to repeat whatever
> they see on the news or read in their local newspapers.
>
> (The largest identifiable group victims of fatal gunshot wounds in the
> U.S. turns out to be older men. Unlike dramatic crimes, routine
> suicides don't appear on the front page or the nightly news.)
>
> A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
> Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
> people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
> rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.
>
> But here's a more objective view of how rainy Seattle is compared to
> some selected U.S. cities over the last 30 years, sorted by inches of
> annual rainfall:
>
> 33.65 AUSTIN/CITY, TX
> 34.81 MILWAUKEE, WI
> 35.64 TOPEKA, KS
> 35.85 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
> 36.27 CHICAGO,IL
> 37.05 DALLAS-LOVE FIELD, TX
> 37.07 PORTLAND, OR
> 37.07 SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA
> 37.85 PITTSBURGH, PA
> --38.25---SEATTLE C.O., WA-------------------
> 38.71 CLEVELAND, OH
> 38.75 ST. LOUIS, MO
> 40.00 SALEM, OR
> 40.95 INDIANAPOLIS, IN
> 41.80 WASHINGTON DULLES AP, D.C.
> 41.94 BALTIMORE, MD
> 42.05 PHILADELPHIA, PA
> 42.42 TULSA, OK
> 42.53 BOSTON, MA
> 42.60 GREATER CINCINNATI AP
> 42.81 WILMINGTON, DE
> 43.91 RICHMOND, VA
> 45.83 PORTLAND, ME
> 45.91 LEXINGTON, KY
> 46.16 HARTFORD, CT
> 46.25 NEWARK, NJ
> 46.45 PROVIDENCE, RI
> 47.84 HOUSTON, TX
> 49.69 NEW YORK C.PARK, NY
> 50.20 ATLANTA, GA
> 50.90 EUGENE, OR
> 50.93 LITTLE ROCK, AR
> 51.53 CHARLESTON AP,SC
> 54.65 MEMPHIS, TN
> 55.95 JACKSON, MS
> 57.07 WILMINGTON, NC
> 58.53 MIAMI, FL
> 64.16 NEW ORLEANS, LA
> 66.29 MOBILE, AL
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/nrmpcp.txt

This mixes snow and rain and does not speak to how many
rainy days there are.

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 18:19:22
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
> The poll results could match reality, but most people in Portland have
> never seen Miami traffic, and vice-versa. They tend to repeat whatever
> they see on the news or read in their local newspapers.

Carl,

That's an excellent point.

>
> (The largest identifiable group victims of fatal gunshot wounds in the
> U.S. turns out to be older men. Unlike dramatic crimes, routine
> suicides don't appear on the front page or the nightly news.)

Interesting.

>
> A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
> Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
> people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
> rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.
>
> But here's a more objective view of how rainy Seattle is compared to
> some selected U.S. cities over the last 30 years, sorted by inches of
> annual rainfall:
>
> 33.65 AUSTIN/CITY, TX
> 34.81 MILWAUKEE, WI
> 35.64 TOPEKA, KS
> 35.85 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
> 36.27 CHICAGO,IL
> 37.05 DALLAS-LOVE FIELD, TX
> 37.07 PORTLAND, OR
> 37.07 SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA
> 37.85 PITTSBURGH, PA
> --38.25---SEATTLE C.O., WA-------------------
> 38.71 CLEVELAND, OH
> 38.75 ST. LOUIS, MO
> 40.00 SALEM, OR
> 40.95 INDIANAPOLIS, IN
> 41.80 WASHINGTON DULLES AP, D.C.
> 41.94 BALTIMORE, MD
> 42.05 PHILADELPHIA, PA
> 42.42 TULSA, OK
> 42.53 BOSTON, MA
> 42.60 GREATER CINCINNATI AP
> 42.81 WILMINGTON, DE
> 43.91 RICHMOND, VA
> 45.83 PORTLAND, ME
> 45.91 LEXINGTON, KY
> 46.16 HARTFORD, CT
> 46.25 NEWARK, NJ
> 46.45 PROVIDENCE, RI
> 47.84 HOUSTON, TX
> 49.69 NEW YORK C.PARK, NY
> 50.20 ATLANTA, GA
> 50.90 EUGENE, OR
> 50.93 LITTLE ROCK, AR
> 51.53 CHARLESTON AP,SC
> 54.65 MEMPHIS, TN
> 55.95 JACKSON, MS
> 57.07 WILMINGTON, NC
> 58.53 MIAMI, FL
> 64.16 NEW ORLEANS, LA
> 66.29 MOBILE, AL

Ah, but as important, what is the distribution of this rainfall? More
rainy days of drizzle in Seattle IS more rain from the daily
perspective. Still, Seattle is not in the top 10 of rainy day (.25" of
rain) cities
http://www.weatherbill.com/static/content/rainfall_study_2007.pdf

However, it did have a lot of drizzly days in a row this year.

Wayne

Date: 18 May 2007 19:28:14
From: still me
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:32:02 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >
wrote:

>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/road.rage.ap/index.html

They should just rename this "where to drive if you're a wimp". Real
men can handle it!

Date: 16 May 2007 11:35:31
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >> According to a review of that study at:
> >>http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html
>
> >> the studies they included to come to their conclusions did not measure
> >> bicycle use. Sure, head injuries went down, but if bicycle use also
> >> went down...
>
> > In the instances where cycling levels were measured before and after the
> > implantation of a helmet law there has never been a study that
> > scientifically measured whether the increases or decreases afterward
> > were related to the law.
>
> Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
> increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>
> Wayne

Here is one:

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'

(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)

It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
-- Jay Beattie.

Date: 16 May 2007 14:46:55
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On 16 May 2007 11:35:31 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com >
wrote:

>On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>> > Wayne Pein wrote:
>> >> According to a review of that study at:
>> >>http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html
>>
>> >> the studies they included to come to their conclusions did not measure
>> >> bicycle use. Sure, head injuries went down, but if bicycle use also
>> >> went down...
>>
>> > In the instances where cycling levels were measured before and after the
>> > implantation of a helmet law there has never been a study that
>> > scientifically measured whether the increases or decreases afterward
>> > were related to the law.
>>
>> Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
>> increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>>
>> Wayne
>
>Here is one:
>
> http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
>
>(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)
>
>It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
>passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
>of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
>was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
>This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
>-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Without commenting on statistical interpretations, here's the tiny
url:

http://tinyurl.com/gpfp9

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 17 May 2007 15:31:01
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

> On 16 May 2007 11:35:31 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>>>Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
>>>increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>>>
>>>Wayne
>>
>>Here is one:
>>
>>http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
>>
>>(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)
>>
>>It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
>>passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
>>of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
>>was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
>>This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
>>-- Jay Beattie.
>

Yes, through my rose-colored glasses I can see how under age 16
bicyclists (those affected by the law) have really taken to the streets.

Wayne

Date: 17 May 2007 15:18:26
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:31:01 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >
wrote:

>
>
>> On 16 May 2007 11:35:31 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
>>>>increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>>>>
>>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>Here is one:
>>>
>>>http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
>>>
>>>(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)
>>>
>>>It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
>>>passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
>>>of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
>>>was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
>>>This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
>>>-- Jay Beattie.
>>
>
>Yes, through my rose-colored glasses I can see how under age 16
>bicyclists (those affected by the law) have really taken to the streets.
>
>Wayne

Dear Wayne & Jay,

Here's a quick graph showing a different view of the same data:

http://i9.tinypic.com/4otix08.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 17 May 2007 17:55:11
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
> Dear Wayne & Jay,
>
> Here's a quick graph showing a different view of the same data:
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/4otix08.jpg
>

Hmmm, crashes greatly increased the two years following the MHL, then
plummeted. Initial expected idiotic behavior followed by a massive
educational campaign to learn the morons something?

Wayne

Date: 17 May 2007 16:38:48
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:55:11 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >
wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Wayne & Jay,
>>
>> Here's a quick graph showing a different view of the same data:
>>
>> http://i9.tinypic.com/4otix08.jpg
>>
>
>Hmmm, crashes greatly increased the two years following the MHL, then
>plummeted. Initial expected idiotic behavior followed by a massive
>educational campaign to learn the morons something?
>
>Wayne

Dear Wayne,

The usual comment is that all long-term studies of serious bicycle
injuries show a general decline, but rise within the general trend
when helmet use increases significantly.

That is, the general trend in bicycle injury rates is gently downward,
but adding helmets raises the rate.

The downward trend, which appears to have no relation to the use or
non-use of helmets, then resumes its gentle descent from a slightly
higher point.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 17 May 2007 14:22:30
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:464cad86$0$8992$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>> On 16 May 2007 11:35:31 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
>>>>increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>>>>
>>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>Here is one:
>>>
>>>http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
>>>
>>>(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)
>>>
>>>It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
>>>passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
>>>of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
>>>was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
>>>This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
>>>-- Jay Beattie.
>>
>
> Yes, through my rose-colored glasses I can see how under age 16 bicyclists
> (those affected by the law) have really taken to the streets.

They are everywhere! A roving band of sub-16 year olds actually tried to
steal my helmet from me while I was waiting at a light! Helmets now have
the cachet of expensive sneakers, and these kids are wearing helmets all of
the time, especially while walking and bathing -- the two most dangerous
human activities. Helmet wearing has become a problem, though, because
these adolescents are acting recklessly, and car drivers, seeing that they
are helmeted and protected from any and all injury, actually try to run them
over -- particularly large trucks that try to squish their heads (to no
avail). Check this out -- this is an ordinary day in Portland.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/214729003/ Don't tell me kids
aren't riding on the bridges post-MHL! -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 17 May 2007 16:34:03
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:22:30 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:

>
>"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:464cad86$0$8992$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>
>>> On 16 May 2007 11:35:31 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On May 16, 9:07 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
>>>>>increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?
>>>>>
>>>>>Wayne
>>>>
>>>>Here is one:
>>>>
>>>>http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
>>>>
>>>>(for some reason, I can't get this to work with TinyURL)
>>>>
>>>>It shows a HUGE increase in ridership in Portland, Oregon after
>>>>passage of the MHL in 1994. I also noticed more deer in my yard. Two
>>>>of my Blue Diamond Rhododendrons died; my wife got older, and there
>>>>was less snow on Mt. Hood this year. My property taxes also went up.
>>>>This clearly shows both the negative and positive effects of the MHL.
>>>>-- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, through my rose-colored glasses I can see how under age 16 bicyclists
>> (those affected by the law) have really taken to the streets.
>
>They are everywhere! A roving band of sub-16 year olds actually tried to
>steal my helmet from me while I was waiting at a light!

[snip]

Dear Jay,

Of course, helmet theft is nothing new.

See the ugly judicial proceedings painted in merciless detail in
"Without the Option," the seventh chapter of "Carry on, Jeeves!"

Or review the more expansive account of such crimes, coupled with
judicial corruption, in "The Code of the Woosters."

Horrifyingly, the perpetrators cannot claim youth as an excuse.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 17 May 2007 17:47:54
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Jay Beattie wrote:

> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message

>>>
>>Yes, through my rose-colored glasses I can see how under age 16 bicyclists
>>(those affected by the law) have really taken to the streets.
>
>
> They are everywhere! A roving band of sub-16 year olds actually tried to
> steal my helmet from me while I was waiting at a light! Helmets now have
> the cachet of expensive sneakers, and these kids are wearing helmets all of
> the time, especially while walking and bathing -- the two most dangerous
> human activities.

I hope they take them off while at playgrounds.

Wayne

Date: 17 May 2007 16:31:24
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> They are everywhere! A roving band of sub-16 year olds actually tried to
> steal my helmet from me while I was waiting at a light! Helmets now have
> the cachet of expensive sneakers, and these kids are wearing helmets all of
> the time, especially while walking and bathing -- the two most dangerous
> human activities. Helmet wearing has become a problem, though, because
> these adolescents are acting recklessly, and car drivers, seeing that they
> are helmeted and protected from any and all injury, actually try to run them
> over -- particularly large trucks that try to squish their heads (to no
> avail). Check this out -- this is an ordinary day in Portland.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/214729003/ Don't tell me kids
> aren't riding on the bridges post-MHL! -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>

Jay, you obviously have a sense of humor and thus do not meet the
minimum requirements for posting to helmet threads here on
rec.bicycles.tech.

Date: 16 May 2007 09:45:49
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

MkTm wrote:
> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
> Then again ..
>
> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html

Violation of rec.bike rules of order -- helmet threads only allowed
during off-season.

Date: 16 May 2007 11:57:03
From: _
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Tue, 15 May 2007 04:09:19 GMT, MkTm wrote:

> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
> Then again ..
>
> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html

[from uk.rec.cycling, where they seem to be much more informed about cycle
helmets]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:51:37 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote:

> Marc Brett wrote:
>
>> For all you doubting-Thomases who think helmets don't work in real-world
>> collisions with vehicles.
>>
>>
>> Bike helmet crushed, but head fine
>> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>>
>> A white paneled delivery truck ran over a UW-Madison graduate student's
>> head on Division Street Friday afternoon and, except for a concussion,
>> he wasn't hurt.
>
> A quick google reveals:
> <http://www.reporter-times.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=29691&format=html>
>
> ...a similar incident involving an 11-year-old and no helmet.
> Children's skulls are supposed to be weaker than adults'
>

Date: 15 May 2007 14:24:50
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 15, 1:21 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:

<snipped >

- on helmets and combating mandatory helmet laws -

> I'm still seeing the "driving helmet" and "walking helmet" logical
> fallacies introduced the helmet debates in areas where the politicians
> are trying to introduce helmet laws. While I think that most of us
> oppose such coercive laws,

I have never known, first hand, a cyclist who favored an *adult*
MHL(Satirical/sarcastic comments excepted).

> when the AHZ's use these fallacies, for all
> intents and purposes they have lost the debate.

Exactly! *No one* takes a nutball or their nutball "arguments"
seriously.

> It's a personal freedom issue.

Bingo!

No one argues that you're better off wearing a helmet in an
> accident than not wearing a helmet (as the news story above
> demonstrates) but that decision should not be made by politicians.-

Date: 15 May 2007 13:14:49
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 15, 6:19 am, LF <fie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:09 am, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
> <snip>
> > Then again ..
>
> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>
> <snip>
>
> Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
> time to get on your bike.
>
> Regards,
> Larry

Dear Larry,

As has been previously discussed . . . _very_ previously:

"There has been no death in the [1880's Massachusetts bicycling] club,
no quarrel, no jealousies, no cliques, no close elections. The nearest
approach to hard feeling was at the annual meeting in 1881, when there
was a struggle upon the question of head-gear. "Helmet or cap?" The
vote was 11 to 11, and the president's vote gave the club the blue
helmet. But a year later, a stormy night,-which kept the old men at
home,-and the added power and eloquence of the 60-inch man [meaning
that he rode a very large highwheeler], gave the cap men the victory,
and the present blue cap (with a visor) was adopted."

"Outing" magazine, 1883
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_02/outII03/outII03a.pdf

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 15 May 2007 20:35:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

>> MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:>
Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>> <snip>
>>> Then again ..
>>> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>> <snip>

> LF <fie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
>> time to get on your bike.

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> As has been previously discussed . . . _very_ previously:
>
> "There has been no death in the [1880's Massachusetts bicycling] club,
> no quarrel, no jealousies, no cliques, no close elections. The nearest
> approach to hard feeling was at the annual meeting in 1881, when there
> was a struggle upon the question of head-gear. "Helmet or cap?" The
> vote was 11 to 11, and the president's vote gave the club the blue
> helmet. But a year later, a stormy night,-which kept the old men at
> home,-and the added power and eloquence of the 60-inch man [meaning
> that he rode a very large highwheeler], gave the cap men the victory,
> and the present blue cap (with a visor) was adopted."
>
> "Outing" magazine, 1883
> http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_02/outII03/outII03a.pdf

Them cap-wearin' heathens are all _dead_ now, ain't they?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 15 May 2007 20:41:27
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:35:42 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

>>> MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:>
>Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>> <snip>
>>>> Then again ..
>>>> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>>> <snip>
>
>> LF <fie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
>>> time to get on your bike.
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> As has been previously discussed . . . _very_ previously:
>>
>> "There has been no death in the [1880's Massachusetts bicycling] club,
>> no quarrel, no jealousies, no cliques, no close elections. The nearest
>> approach to hard feeling was at the annual meeting in 1881, when there
>> was a struggle upon the question of head-gear. "Helmet or cap?" The
>> vote was 11 to 11, and the president's vote gave the club the blue
>> helmet. But a year later, a stormy night,-which kept the old men at
>> home,-and the added power and eloquence of the 60-inch man [meaning
>> that he rode a very large highwheeler], gave the cap men the victory,
>> and the present blue cap (with a visor) was adopted."
>>
>> "Outing" magazine, 1883
>> http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_02/outII03/outII03a.pdf
>
>Them cap-wearin' heathens are all _dead_ now, ain't they?

Dear Andrew,

Yes, every single one of 'em! Dead as doornails!

(Our research and analysis concerning the mortality rate of the Boston
bicycle club of the 1880's must be making Frank Krygowski re-think his
claims about how safe bicycling is, with or without helmets.)

Lenz wore a helmet sometimes on his round-the-world attempt:

"The number of the wonders of the world in classic fiction was
restricted to seven, and next to the Colossus of Rhodes the shaking
Minarets of Ispahan were the most marvelous of them all. Mindful of
this I rode out to see them the morning after my arrival, through
four miles of ruins, and through the gauntlet of a hooting and yelling
rabble. They offered no violence until I attempted to outdistance them
when a stray stone struck my helmet with force enough to dent it.
Thinking that this might be the precursor of a more copious
shower I leaped from my wheel at once, and pulling my revolver leveled
it at the vanguard of the trailing crowd."

"Outing" magazine, 1896
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_28/outXXVIII02/outXXVIII02j.pdf

It is unknown whether Lenz replaced his dented helmet, per the
manufacturer's warnings, before he was murdered a few weeks later.

Lenz rode a modern safety bicycle. Earlier, Stevens rode a high
wheeler around the world and wore a helmet, which protected him from
natives in Persia:

"An effort to keep them from taking possession of my quarters by
shoving them off the front porch, results in my being seized roughly
by the throat by one determined assailant and cracked on the head
with a stick by another. . . . The stiff, United States army helmet,
obtained, it will be remembered, at Fort Sidney, Nebraska, and worn on
the road ever since, saves my bump of veneration from actual contact
with the stick of number two; and finding me making only a passive
resistance, the valiant individual in the green kammerbund relaxes
both the severity of his scowl and his grip on my neck gear."

"Outing" magazine, 1887
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_10/outX05/outX05d.pdf

Stevens seems to have obtained his helmet more for protection from the
sun than from clubs or from the headers common to high wheelers:

"Through courtesy of the commanding officer at Fort Sidney I am
enabled to resume my journey eastward under the grateful shade of a
military summer helmet in lieu of the semi-sombrero slouch, that has
lasted me through from San Francisco."

"Outing" magazine, 1885
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_06/outVI04/outVI04d.pdf

Indeed, Stevens seemed worried about an entirely different danger as
he headed east off-road across the Great Plains on his high wheeler
with solid rubber tires:

"Not far from where the trail leads out of Crow Creek bottom on to the
higher table-land, I find the grassy plain smoother than the
wagon-trail, and bowl along for a short distance as easily as one
could wish. But not for long is this permitted; the ground becomes
covered with a carpeting of small, loose cactuses that stick to the
rubber tire with the clinging tenacity of a cockle-burr to a mule�s
tail. Of course they scrape off again as they come round to the bridge
of the fork, but it isn�t the tire picking them up that fills me with
lynx-eyed vigilance and alarm; it is the dreaded possibility of taking
a header among these awful vegetables that unnerves me, starts the
cold chills chasing each other up and down my spinal column, and
causes staring big beads of perspiration to ooze out of my forehead."

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_06/outVI03/outVI03f.pdf

Falls from a high wheeler were much more common and from quite a bit
higher than falls from a modern safety bicycle. The rider began his
frequent plunges from a seat about 50 inches above the ground.

So far, I find no helmets sold for bicycling in old catalogues.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 15 May 2007 09:01:40
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 15, 5:19 am, LF <fie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:09 am, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
> <snip>
> > Then again ..
>
> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>
> <snip>
>
> Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
> time to get on your bike.

I wear a blue helmet because the studies show that it is the safest
color, except for yellow, which goes with everything. I avoid
rotational injuries by just not rotating. I also avoid putting my
head under truck wheels, although I was temped the other day to put my
head under the wheels of a Smart Car, but, as it turns out, my head
would not even fit under the bumper.-- Jay Beattie.

Date: 15 May 2007 06:17:14
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 14, 11:09 pm, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid > wrote:
> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.htmlhttp://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

GOOD THING HE GOT HIS HEAD OUT OF THAT THING IN TIME!!!!!

(see "Chalo", below").

One un-but-then-oh-so lucky dude!

Hint: roll the truck over the helllllmet without the head inside
(absent a willing volunteer) and see WTF happens. Crunch!

Sorry, not in the mood for helmet BS this morning. Honda AC, DOA. $$$.
Maybe they'll make it work now??? --D-y

Date: 15 May 2007 09:00:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> On May 14, 11:09 pm, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>
>> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.htmlhttp://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
> GOOD THING HE GOT HIS HEAD OUT OF THAT THING IN TIME!!!!!
>
> (see "Chalo", below").
>
> One un-but-then-oh-so lucky dude!
>
> Hint: roll the truck over the helllllmet without the head inside
> (absent a willing volunteer) and see WTF happens. Crunch!
>
> Sorry, not in the mood for helmet BS this morning. Honda AC, DOA. $$$.
> Maybe they'll make it work now??? --D-y

If a truck rolled over an empty helmet, it would be crushed flat. Does this
look crushed flat?

http://www.madison.com:80/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2007/05/12/45019.jpg

I was skeptical after reading the OP, too, until I saw it from other sources
(including A.P.: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070515/D8P4GARG0.html).
I tend to think they'd at least do some investigating before putting
something out on the national news wire.

Ever see an egg withstand forces that you are sure should crush it? IF THE
STORY'S TRUE (and I agree that it's hard to believe), then I think the guy
was just extremely fortunate. If the head was turned differently, then no
doubt the lid AND skull would have collapsed.

I'm not surprised that some would immediately claim deceit (without proof);
it's upsetting when things challenge your IDEOLOGY...

BS (perhaps, perhaps not)

Date: 15 May 2007 11:42:44
From: Pikachu
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

In article <4649d92f$0$4638$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> If a truck rolled over an empty helmet, it would be crushed flat. Does this
> look crushed flat?
>
> http://www.madison.com:80/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2007/05/12/
> 45019.jpg
>
> I was skeptical after reading the OP, too, until I saw it from other sources
> (including A.P.: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070515/D8P4GARG0.html).
> I tend to think they'd at least do some investigating before putting
> something out on the national news wire.

According to most post-war accounts, anyone who knew anything about that
region also knew that the Iraqi WMD claim was false. Yet, major
newspapers printed it without cross-checking. What was that about doing
some investigating before putting something out on the national news
wire?

> Ever see an egg withstand forces that you are sure should crush it? IF THE
> STORY'S TRUE (and I agree that it's hard to believe), then I think the guy
> was just extremely fortunate. If the head was turned differently, then no
> doubt the lid AND skull would have collapsed.
>
> I'm not surprised that some would immediately claim deceit (without proof);
> it's upsetting when things challenge your IDEOLOGY...

Examining the picture cited, it appears to a layman that a helmet cannot
disintegrate as shown without significant compression of the skull, if
there was indeed a skull in there at the time of the event. The
helmet's polystyrene/polycarbonate material was not simply crushed, but
the helmet suffered fractures consistent with significant distortion of
its basic shape. Either that, or the helmet was severely oversized for
the wearer.

I propose a second hypothesis. The picture showed that the helmet was
crushed towards the rear, where it protrudes a bit and contains no head
material. If the truck ran over that part of the helmet, the helmet can
safely crack without much damage to the wearer's head, simply because
the wearer's head was not there. The mechanism will be similar to
"pinching" the rear of the helmet. This proposal can reconcile the
evidence of a cracked helmet, with the claim of the helmet being worn at
the time it was cracked.

Pikachu
(It's too cold for riding today)

Date: 15 May 2007 12:06:10
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Pikachu wrote:
> In article <4649d92f$0$4638$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> If a truck rolled over an empty helmet, it would be crushed flat.
>> Does this look crushed flat?
>>
>> http://www.madison.com:80/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2007/05/12/
>> 45019.jpg
>>
>> I was skeptical after reading the OP, too, until I saw it from other
>> sources (including A.P.:
>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070515/D8P4GARG0.html). I tend to
>> think they'd at least do some investigating before putting something
>> out on the national news wire.
>
> According to most post-war accounts, anyone who knew anything about
> that region also knew that the Iraqi WMD claim was false. Yet, major
> newspapers printed it without cross-checking. What was that about
> doing some investigating before putting something out on the national
> news wire?

LOL Someone tell France and Russia and Britain and Germany and the CIA and
the UN's own investigators that they were all wrong and "anyone who knew
anything about that region" knew it. LOL

>> Ever see an egg withstand forces that you are sure should crush it?
>> IF THE STORY'S TRUE (and I agree that it's hard to believe), then I
>> think the guy was just extremely fortunate. If the head was turned
>> differently, then no doubt the lid AND skull would have collapsed.
>>
>> I'm not surprised that some would immediately claim deceit (without
>> proof); it's upsetting when things challenge your IDEOLOGY...

> Examining the picture cited, it appears to a layman that a helmet
> cannot disintegrate as shown without significant compression of the
> skull, if there was indeed a skull in there at the time of the event.
> The helmet's polystyrene/polycarbonate material was not simply
> crushed, but the helmet suffered fractures consistent with
> significant distortion of its basic shape. Either that, or the
> helmet was severely oversized for the wearer.
>
> I propose a second hypothesis. The picture showed that the helmet was
> crushed towards the rear, where it protrudes a bit and contains no
> head material. If the truck ran over that part of the helmet, the
> helmet can safely crack without much damage to the wearer's head,
> simply because the wearer's head was not there. The mechanism will
> be similar to "pinching" the rear of the helmet. This proposal can
> reconcile the evidence of a cracked helmet, with the claim of the
> helmet being worn at the time it was cracked.
>
> Pikachu
> (It's too cold for riding today)

So the guy's either a liar (like you and many have claimed) OR he got
"squeezed out of harm's way" /by the lid/.

If the helmet was turned just right, the truck could roll over it and
destroy the foam and not the skull. One in a... million? thousand?
Whatever.

Maybe it's all a crock (hoax). Has anyone bothered to follow up and ASK for
more info/details?

Date: 15 May 2007 19:30:21
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:06:10 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>LOL Someone tell France and Russia and Britain and Germany and the CIA and
>the UN's own investigators that they were all wrong and "anyone who knew
>anything about that region" knew it. LOL

You are a moron. Where do you get your news?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 15 May 2007 17:42:38
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:4649d92f$0$4638$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> I tend to think they'd at least do some investigating before putting
> something out on the national news wire.

You're funny.

I don't think anybody's doubting the crash. They're just doubting what is
presented as the helmet saving his life.

clive

Date: 15 May 2007 09:53:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Clive George wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:4649d92f$0$4638$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> I tend to think they'd at least do some investigating before putting
>> something out on the national news wire.
>
> You're funny.

So are you.

> I don't think anybody's doubting the crash. They're just doubting
> what is presented as the helmet saving his life.

People are doubting the crash. (His head wasn't really in the helmet?)

Try reading the thread again, this time with comprehension. Good luck!

Date: 15 May 2007 05:19:42
From: LF
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On May 15, 12:09 am, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid > wrote:
> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
<snip >
> Then again ..
>
> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
<snip >

Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
time to get on your bike.

Regards,
Larry

Date: 15 May 2007 18:17:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

In article
<1179231582.394108.101770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
LF <fieman@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 15, 12:09 am, MkTm <M...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> > Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
> <snip>
> > Then again ..
> >
> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
> <snip>
>
> Helmet wars traditionally occur during the off season. Now's a great
> time to get on your bike.

But we did not have one this off-season. It kept hanging fire.

--
Michael Press

Date: 15 May 2007 03:05:18
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> MkTm wrote:
> >
> > Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
> >
> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> >http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
> >
> > Then again ..
> >
> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
> >
> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
>
> The first links relate something that apparently really happened.

Try again. Explain to me how a helmet gets flattened while someone's
head is in it, yet his head remains unharmed. The foam hat in the
picture does not have any stuctural integrity left, if it ever did to
begin with. How do you propose that it protected the guys noggin?
Hel-magic?

The truck ran over the helmet in the picture, but not over the head in
the picture. That's all. In being crushed while his head wasn't
inside, it Obviously Saved His Life (tm), though.

Chalo

Date: 15 May 2007 18:12:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

In article
<1179223518.701951.74290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > MkTm wrote:
> > >
> > > Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
> > >
> > >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> > >http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
> > >
> > > Then again ..
> > >
> > > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
> > >
> > >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
> >
> > The first links relate something that apparently really happened.
>
> Try again. Explain to me how a helmet gets flattened while someone's
> head is in it, yet his head remains unharmed. The foam hat in the
> picture does not have any stuctural integrity left, if it ever did to
> begin with. How do you propose that it protected the guys noggin?
> Hel-magic?

Yes, and I am its mage. Ping! You are a jockey.

--
Michael Press

Date: 15 May 2007 10:50:35
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On 15 May 2007 03:05:18 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> MkTm wrote:
>> >
>> > Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>> >
>> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
>> >http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>> >
>> > Then again ..
>> >
>> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>> >
>> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
>>
>> The first links relate something that apparently really happened.
>
>Try again. Explain to me how a helmet gets flattened while someone's
>head is in it, yet his head remains unharmed. The foam hat in the
>picture does not have any stuctural integrity left, if it ever did to
>begin with. How do you propose that it protected the guys noggin?
>Hel-magic?
>
>The truck ran over the helmet in the picture, but not over the head in
>the picture. That's all. In being crushed while his head wasn't
>inside, it Obviously Saved His Life (tm), though.

Well, yeah!

He was wearing a helmet. He got into a collision with a truck. He lived.
Obviously the helmet saved his life. Everybody who ever had an accident without
a helmet is dead or brain damaged. /sarcasm

What I want to know:

Obviously, that helmet is not suited to prevent crushing of his head. Which is
what obviously didn't happen. So no credit to the lid for that. But, he did
suffer a concussion, which is precisely the sort of injury that such a helmet
might possibly prevent. So this magic helmet is getting credit for a save it
wasn't designed for and is not getting blamed for permitting the injury that it
was intended to prevent.

Ron

Date: 15 May 2007 15:06:21
From: _
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:50:35 -0400, RonSonic wrote:

> On 15 May 2007 03:05:18 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>> MkTm wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>> >
>>> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
>>> >http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>>> >
>>> > Then again ..
>>> >
>>> > Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>>> >
>>> >http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
>>>
>>> The first links relate something that apparently really happened.
>>
>>Try again. Explain to me how a helmet gets flattened while someone's
>>head is in it, yet his head remains unharmed. The foam hat in the
>>picture does not have any stuctural integrity left, if it ever did to
>>begin with. How do you propose that it protected the guys noggin?
>>Hel-magic?
>>
>>The truck ran over the helmet in the picture, but not over the head in
>>the picture. That's all. In being crushed while his head wasn't
>>inside, it Obviously Saved His Life (tm), though.
>
> Well, yeah!
>
> He was wearing a helmet. He got into a collision with a truck. He lived.
> Obviously the helmet saved his life. Everybody who ever had an accident without
> a helmet is dead or brain damaged. /sarcasm
>
> What I want to know:
>
> Obviously, that helmet is not suited to prevent crushing of his head. Which is
> what obviously didn't happen. So no credit to the lid for that. But, he did
> suffer a concussion, which is precisely the sort of injury that such a helmet
> might possibly prevent. So this magic helmet is getting credit for a save it
> wasn't designed for and is not getting blamed for permitting the injury that it
> was intended to prevent.
>

Helmets are possible/probably responsible for greater nembers, and greater
severity of rotatational injuries; "...the worst villain in concussion".
While such an anecdote as above is not proof, the common misunderstanding
of this point combined with the pro-helmet and pro MHL zealots (cue Ozark)
quasi-religious faith in their efficacy often yields such an apparent
conundrum.

Date: 15 May 2007 11:04:51
From: _
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On 15 May 2007 03:05:18 -0700, Chalo wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> MkTm wrote:
>>>
>>> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>>
>>>http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
>>>http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>>>
>>> Then again ..
>>>
>>> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>>>
>>>http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
>>
>> The first links relate something that apparently really happened.
>
> Try again. Explain to me how a helmet gets flattened while someone's
> head is in it, yet his head remains unharmed. The foam hat in the
> picture does not have any stuctural integrity left, if it ever did to
> begin with. How do you propose that it protected the guys noggin?
> Hel-magic?
>
> The truck ran over the helmet in the picture, but not over the head in
> the picture. That's all. In being crushed while his head wasn't
> inside, it Obviously Saved His Life (tm), though.
>

Bill "doesn't need data to make decisions" (his own words).

Date: 15 May 2007 08:33:31
From: _
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Date: 14 May 2007 22:33:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

MkTm wrote:
> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

PS:
http://www.madison.com/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2007/05/12/45019.jpg

Whole population study THAT! LOL

Date: 15 May 2007 05:34:17
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Mon, 14 May 2007 22:33:32 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>MkTm wrote:
>> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>
>> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
>> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
>PS:
>http://www.madison.com/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2007/05/12/45019.jpg
>
>Whole population study THAT! LOL

How ironic, to read Sorni talking about quality of studies.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 14 May 2007 22:11:16
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

MkTm wrote:
> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
> Then again ..
>
> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html

The first links relate something that apparently really happened. The last
one relates to a thoroughly discredited "study" with an obviously ridiculous
"finding".

HTH

Date: 15 May 2007 11:21:15
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Bill Sornson wrote:
> MkTm wrote:
>> Truck crushes biker's helmet but not head
>>
>> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/14/truck_crushes_bikers.html
>> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>>
>> Then again ..
>>
>> Bike helmets inspire unsafe driving
>>
>> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13/bike_helmets_inspire.html
>
> The first links relate something that apparently really happened. The last
> one relates to a thoroughly discredited "study" with an obviously ridiculous
> "finding".

If not for discredited theories and unscientific studies, the AHZs would
have no references to post at all.

It's like the claims that helmets reduce the level of cycling. Well in
some areas bicycle use went up after helmet laws were introduced, and in
some areas in went down after helmet laws were introduced. In neither
case was it ever demonstrated that the helmet law had anything to do
with the increase or decrease. Maybe it did, but there were no
scientific studies conducted to determine the reason for the increase or
decrease.

If you want to go strictly be evidence-based studies, read "Bicycle
helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries" by Macpherson A and Spinks A of the Cochrane Collaboration.

I'm still seeing the "driving helmet" and "walking helmet" logical
fallacies introduced the helmet debates in areas where the politicians
are trying to introduce helmet laws. While I think that most of us
oppose such coercive laws, when the AHZ's use these fallacies, for all
intents and purposes they have lost the debate. It's a personal freedom
issue. No one argues that you're better off wearing a helmet in an
accident than not wearing a helmet (as the news story above
demonstrates) but that decision should not be made by politicians.

Date: 15 May 2007 17:52:31
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

SMS wrote:

>
> If not for discredited theories and unscientific studies, the AHZs would
> have no references to post at all.
>
> It's like the claims that helmets reduce the level of cycling. Well in
> some areas bicycle use went up after helmet laws were introduced, and in
> some areas in went down after helmet laws were introduced. In neither
> case was it ever demonstrated that the helmet law had anything to do
> with the increase or decrease. Maybe it did, but there were no
> scientific studies conducted to determine the reason for the increase or
> decrease.
>
> If you want to go strictly be evidence-based studies, read "Bicycle
> helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
> injuries" by Macpherson A and Spinks A of the Cochrane Collaboration.
>

According to a review of that study at:
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html

the studies they included to come to their conclusions did not measure
bicycle use. Sure, head injuries went down, but if bicycle use also went
down...

Wayne

Date: 15 May 2007 17:51:51
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Wayne Pein wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If not for discredited theories and unscientific studies, the AHZs
>> would have no references to post at all.
>>
>> It's like the claims that helmets reduce the level of cycling. Well in
>> some areas bicycle use went up after helmet laws were introduced, and
>> in some areas in went down after helmet laws were introduced. In
>> neither case was it ever demonstrated that the helmet law had anything
>> to do with the increase or decrease. Maybe it did, but there were no
>> scientific studies conducted to determine the reason for the increase
>> or decrease.
>>
>> If you want to go strictly be evidence-based studies, read "Bicycle
>> helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
>> injuries" by Macpherson A and Spinks A of the Cochrane Collaboration.
>>
>
> According to a review of that study at:
> http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html
>
> the studies they included to come to their conclusions did not measure
> bicycle use. Sure, head injuries went down, but if bicycle use also went
> down...

In the instances where cycling levels were measured before and after the
implantation of a helmet law there has never been a study that
scientifically measured whether the increases or decreases afterward
were related to the law. There's a big difference between causation and
correlation, something that the AHZ's seem to not understand too well.
You have to look at _all_ possible reasons why something occurs, not
grab onto whatever fits your agenda.

Date: 18 May 2007 14:58:27
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

Carl Fogel wrote:
>
> A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
> Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
> people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
> rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.

I like to explain the difference between the outwardly similar
precipitation in Austin (my hometown) and Seattle (my home from
2001-2006) like this:

Most of the time in Seattle, it's raining more than enough to get you
dirty, but not nearly enough to get you clean. That modest 37-38" of
precipitation gets spread out over more than 200 days, large blocks of
which are filled with incessant cold drizzle. As a result of the
small accumulation at any one time, the storm drainage situation in
Seattle is remarkably primitive and ineffectual. In the relatively
few flat areas, significant rainfall causes ponding in the streets.

Austin receives most of its usual 34-35" of rain in God's Own
Buckets. A Texas thunderstorm is a vivid illustration of Biblical
divine wrath. Raindrops come down like a flurry of countless
individual slaps, each one audible and stinging as it strikes. The
streets fill up, normally dry culverts become raging torrents, whole
trees are washed away only to appear elsewhere in lakes and
streambeds, and everything uncovered is purged of its accumulated dust
and indifference.

One good Austin-style frog strangler would launch most of Seattle out
into Puget Sound. Every time they get even a half-hearted rainstorm,
a number of rich folks' houses fall into Lake Washington.

Any practical bike in Seattle must have full fenders, to intercept a
mixture of water and the grime that seems to get deposited at almost
the same rate as the water. In Austin, fenders are not considered
necessary-- usually, you can just sit tight and wait out the squall.
If you must go out into a real thunderstorm, it's like riding through
a car wash; you end up soaked to the skin but not blackened with
filth.

Chalo

Date: 19 May 2007 02:29:55
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On 18 May 2007 14:58:27 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>Carl Fogel wrote:
>>
>> A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
>> Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
>> people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
>> rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.
>
>I like to explain the difference between the outwardly similar
>precipitation in Austin (my hometown) and Seattle (my home from
>2001-2006) like this:
>
>Most of the time in Seattle, it's raining more than enough to get you
>dirty, but not nearly enough to get you clean. That modest 37-38" of
>precipitation gets spread out over more than 200 days, large blocks of
>which are filled with incessant cold drizzle. As a result of the
>small accumulation at any one time, the storm drainage situation in
>Seattle is remarkably primitive and ineffectual. In the relatively
>few flat areas, significant rainfall causes ponding in the streets.
>
>Austin receives most of its usual 34-35" of rain in God's Own
>Buckets. A Texas thunderstorm is a vivid illustration of Biblical
>divine wrath. Raindrops come down like a flurry of countless
>individual slaps, each one audible and stinging as it strikes. The
>streets fill up, normally dry culverts become raging torrents, whole
>trees are washed away only to appear elsewhere in lakes and
>streambeds, and everything uncovered is purged of its accumulated dust
>and indifference.
>
>One good Austin-style frog strangler would launch most of Seattle out
>into Puget Sound. Every time they get even a half-hearted rainstorm,
>a number of rich folks' houses fall into Lake Washington.
>
>Any practical bike in Seattle must have full fenders, to intercept a
>mixture of water and the grime that seems to get deposited at almost
>the same rate as the water. In Austin, fenders are not considered
>necessary-- usually, you can just sit tight and wait out the squall.
>If you must go out into a real thunderstorm, it's like riding through
>a car wash; you end up soaked to the skin but not blackened with
>filth.
>
>Chalo

Dear Chalo,

I'll buy 200 days of very light drizzle or even mist, but I can't
resist pointing out the details.

At the very end of this 30-year study, a table shows the annual
rainfall and the number of "rainy" days (defined as 0.25" of rain,
which Seattleites may call a deluge) for 42 rainy U.S. cities:

http://www.weatherbill.com/static/content/rainfall_study_2007.pdf

The table appears to have included 42 cities because that's enough to
include Seattle and Portland--they're dead last in annual rainfall.

And those two Washington state cities are almost dead last in number
of "rainy" days. Only one of the 40 other rainy cities (Tampa,
Florida) had fewer days per year with 0.25" of rain.

I note with pride that Pueblo, Colorado, somehow elbowed its way into
the middle of the table of the driest cities, even though this makes
me suspicious of the whole study, since it rained yesterday before my
ride and things around here have always seemed perfectly average and
ordinary to me.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 19 May 2007 11:00:32
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>> A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
>>> Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
>>> people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
>>> rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.
>> I like to explain the difference between the outwardly similar
>> precipitation in Austin (my hometown) and Seattle (my home from
>> 2001-2006) like this:

> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Most of the time in Seattle, it's raining more than enough to get you
>> dirty, but not nearly enough to get you clean. That modest 37-38" of
>> precipitation gets spread out over more than 200 days, large blocks of
>> which are filled with incessant cold drizzle. As a result of the
>> small accumulation at any one time, the storm drainage situation in
>> Seattle is remarkably primitive and ineffectual. In the relatively
>> few flat areas, significant rainfall causes ponding in the streets.
>>
>> Austin receives most of its usual 34-35" of rain in God's Own
>> Buckets. A Texas thunderstorm is a vivid illustration of Biblical
>> divine wrath. Raindrops come down like a flurry of countless
>> individual slaps, each one audible and stinging as it strikes. The
>> streets fill up, normally dry culverts become raging torrents, whole
>> trees are washed away only to appear elsewhere in lakes and
>> streambeds, and everything uncovered is purged of its accumulated dust
>> and indifference.
>>
>> One good Austin-style frog strangler would launch most of Seattle out
>> into Puget Sound. Every time they get even a half-hearted rainstorm,
>> a number of rich folks' houses fall into Lake Washington.
>>
>> Any practical bike in Seattle must have full fenders, to intercept a
>> mixture of water and the grime that seems to get deposited at almost
>> the same rate as the water. In Austin, fenders are not considered
>> necessary-- usually, you can just sit tight and wait out the squall.
>> If you must go out into a real thunderstorm, it's like riding through
>> a car wash; you end up soaked to the skin but not blackened with
>> filth.

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I'll buy 200 days of very light drizzle or even mist, but I can't
> resist pointing out the details.
>
> At the very end of this 30-year study, a table shows the annual
> rainfall and the number of "rainy" days (defined as 0.25" of rain,
> which Seattleites may call a deluge) for 42 rainy U.S. cities:
>
> http://www.weatherbill.com/static/content/rainfall_study_2007.pdf
>
> The table appears to have included 42 cities because that's enough to
> include Seattle and Portland--they're dead last in annual rainfall.
>
> And those two Washington state cities are almost dead last in number
> of "rainy" days. Only one of the 40 other rainy cities (Tampa,
> Florida) had fewer days per year with 0.25" of rain.
>
> I note with pride that Pueblo, Colorado, somehow elbowed its way into
> the middle of the table of the driest cities, even though this makes
> me suspicious of the whole study, since it rained yesterday before my
> ride and things around here have always seemed perfectly average and
> ordinary to me.

I used to visit Seattle regularly and was impressed that although it may
rain 2 or 3 times during a ride, it's dry. Dry, no kidding. Dry enough
that window screens for mosquitos are not necessary. Living in a moist
place, seeing open unscreened windows in a bedroom was at first quite
disconcerting.

Chalo makes a good point about extremes. A little dusting of snow, which
would go both unnoticed and unreported here, will bring out roadbuilding
machinery to Seattle's expressways and carnage all around.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 19 May 2007 12:57:05
From:
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:00:32 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

[sni]

>I used to visit Seattle regularly and was impressed that although it may
>rain 2 or 3 times during a ride, it's dry. Dry, no kidding. Dry enough
>that window screens for mosquitos are not necessary. Living in a moist
>place, seeing open unscreened windows in a bedroom was at first quite
>disconcerting.
>
>Chalo makes a good point about extremes. A little dusting of snow, which
>would go both unnoticed and unreported here, will bring out roadbuilding
>machinery to Seattle's expressways and carnage all around.

Dear Andrew,

You could be right . . .

But the dry-means-no-mosquitoes theory would suggest that the upper
Arkansas River valley has no mosquitoes, that the insect repellent we
are starting to slather on is pointless, and that all the magpies in
Pueblo weren't killed by mosquito-borne West Nile fever a few years
ago--the magpies used to be as common as robins here, but now they're
rarer than hawks.

It's always fun when visitors refuse insect repellent. You get to
listen to them complain about both the mosquitoes and the cactus as we
stroll across the prairie bluffs.

The damn things can breed in four days, so even our occasional puddles
lead to clouds of mosquitoes that will follow you for a mile. Here's a
typical Pueblo newspaper spring mosquito story:

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1179249170/2

A friend who lives in Seattle thinks that the explanation for its lack
of mosquitoes is that the geography, vegetation, and dry summers lead
to a lack of the standing water that they need to breed.

I don't think much of my friend's theory, but you're right about the
results--Seattle houses rarely have screens because mosquitoes are so
scarce, and my friend loves to mention occasional dry Seattle summers
with water rationing and dying lawns.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 19 May 2007 03:39:50
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

In article <1179525507.201370.218890@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

> Carl Fogel wrote:
> >
> > A Seattle friend likes to point out that many people who live in
> > Seattle (believe that Seattle is exceptionally rainy. In fact, most
> > people who've heard of Seattle think that it must be rainy there. The
> > rainfall in Seattle is as well-known as the road rage in Miami.
>
> I like to explain the difference between the outwardly similar
> precipitation in Austin (my hometown) and Seattle (my home from
> 2001-2006) like this:
>
> Most of the time in Seattle, it's raining more than enough to get you
> dirty, but not nearly enough to get you clean. That modest 37-38" of
> precipitation gets spread out over more than 200 days, large blocks of
> which are filled with incessant cold drizzle. As a result of the
> small accumulation at any one time, the storm drainage situation in
> Seattle is remarkably primitive and ineffectual. In the relatively
> few flat areas, significant rainfall causes ponding in the streets.
>
> Austin receives most of its usual 34-35" of rain in God's Own
> Buckets. A Texas thunderstorm is a vivid illustration of Biblical
> divine wrath. Raindrops come down like a flurry of countless
> individual slaps, each one audible and stinging as it strikes. The
> streets fill up, normally dry culverts become raging torrents, whole
> trees are washed away only to appear elsewhere in lakes and
> streambeds, and everything uncovered is purged of its accumulated dust
> and indifference.
>
> One good Austin-style frog strangler would launch most of Seattle out
> into Puget Sound. Every time they get even a half-hearted rainstorm,
> a number of rich folks' houses fall into Lake Washington.
>
> Any practical bike in Seattle must have full fenders, to intercept a
> mixture of water and the grime that seems to get deposited at almost
> the same rate as the water. In Austin, fenders are not considered
> necessary-- usually, you can just sit tight and wait out the squall.
> If you must go out into a real thunderstorm, it's like riding through
> a car wash; you end up soaked to the skin but not blackened with
> filth.

Chalo's description sounds pretty accurate. The best measure of how
persistently cloudy and drizzly (and I should say, it's just not that
bad; we also get these blissfully mild winters where snow is an (annual)
news-leading event) the Pacific Northwest can be is to track hours of
sunlight/year for a variety of cities.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 16 May 2007 12:07:54
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Wear that Helmet II .. or not

SMS wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> According to a review of that study at:
>> http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html
>>
>> the studies they included to come to their conclusions did not measure
>> bicycle use. Sure, head injuries went down, but if bicycle use also
>> went down...
>
>
> In the instances where cycling levels were measured before and after the
> implantation of a helmet law there has never been a study that
> scientifically measured whether the increases or decreases afterward
> were related to the law.

Can you provide a reference to the study(s) where there was an alleged
increase in cycling after a helmet law was implemented?

Wayne