Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²

Chalo

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
> looks good and fits nicely than it does to pay a lot of extra $$$ to buy
> pre-worn pre-torn jeans... and yet that's what a whole lot of people did not
> all that many years ago.
>
> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
> food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
> Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?

A bicycle helmet isn't like like a house, or food, or a car, or a set
of tools. It's more like a butt plug. Styling differences between
butt plugs, or bicycle helmets, are secondary to the fact that wearing
one makes the user look very silly indeed.

Chalo

Frank Krygowski

On May 22, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> >
>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
> looks good...

:-) And to prove how good helmets really look, you can walk or drive
through any city or suburb, go to any restaurant or mall, stop in at
any museum or concert, and count all the people that are using multi-
colored, swoopy-shaped styrofoam hats to enhance their appearance!

Face it, Mike: One has to drink a lot of special Kool-Aid to consider
this a good looking hat. http://tinyurl.com/2vjluk. Nobody but an
image-crazed bicyclist would ever wear that anywhere. It looks like
something a 1940s superhero might wear. It's a triumph of marketing.

In a few years, people will put its wearers in the same category as
these folks:
http://www.library.yale.edu/walpole...hair/index.html

> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same.

Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
facing the street?

> We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more.

It would be harsh, wouldn't it, to give up Escalades, and pass up the
opportunity to burn hundreds of barrels of oil to get ourselves and
all our outfitter gear to those restaurants and operas that need 4-
wheel-drive off-road capability!

> We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc.

You mean like we actually do for most buildings? Ever gaze in rapture
at the architectural elegance of a Wal-Marts or a big box electronics
store?

(And "overpasses"? Are they supposed to be customized sculptural
designs?)

> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?

I'd recommend being less materialistic, and definitely less a slave to
fashion.

Sure, there can be beauty and art in an object, and there can be some
pleasure in owning something that's particularly nice.

But it would be interesting to bring the wisest men of the year 1300
AD in for consultation, and explain that we in America no longer have
to work as hard as we can to avoid starvation; that we never worry
much about bad harvests; that wild animals don't trouble us; that most
terrible diseases are tamed; and that we have leisure that people in
1300 AD could only dream about

I think the wisest men of that period would be appalled that we spend
most of our excess time and money just acquiring... shit. That is,
possessions that we don't really need, and soon don't really want, and
quickly discard in favor of more... shit.

Is that really the best goal in life?

Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.

- Frank Krygowski

Mike Jacoubowsky

> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
and the planet.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0a9b3c-29fa-4dfb-b012-e8cb9e730d4b@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare
>> say
>> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that
>> arguably
>> looks good...
>
> :-) And to prove how good helmets really look, you can walk or drive
> through any city or suburb, go to any restaurant or mall, stop in at
> any museum or concert, and count all the people that are using multi-
> colored, swoopy-shaped styrofoam hats to enhance their appearance!
>
> Face it, Mike: One has to drink a lot of special Kool-Aid to consider
> this a good looking hat. http://tinyurl.com/2vjluk. Nobody but an
> image-crazed bicyclist would ever wear that anywhere. It looks like
> something a 1940s superhero might wear. It's a triumph of marketing.
>
> In a few years, people will put its wearers in the same category as
> these folks:
> http://www.library.yale.edu/walpole...hair/index.html
>
>> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses
>> on
>> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same.
>
> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
> facing the street?
>
>> We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
>> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more.
>
> It would be harsh, wouldn't it, to give up Escalades, and pass up the
> opportunity to burn hundreds of barrels of oil to get ourselves and
> all our outfitter gear to those restaurants and operas that need 4-
> wheel-drive off-road capability!
>
>> We
>> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
>> buildings and overpasses etc.
>
> You mean like we actually do for most buildings? Ever gaze in rapture
> at the architectural elegance of a Wal-Marts or a big box electronics
> store?
>
> (And "overpasses"? Are they supposed to be customized sculptural
> designs?)
>
>> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>>
>> Is that what you would recommend?
>
> I'd recommend being less materialistic, and definitely less a slave to
> fashion.
>
> Sure, there can be beauty and art in an object, and there can be some
> pleasure in owning something that's particularly nice.
>
> But it would be interesting to bring the wisest men of the year 1300
> AD in for consultation, and explain that we in America no longer have
> to work as hard as we can to avoid starvation; that we never worry
> much about bad harvests; that wild animals don't trouble us; that most
> terrible diseases are tamed; and that we have leisure that people in
> 1300 AD could only dream about
>
> I think the wisest men of that period would be appalled that we spend
> most of our excess time and money just acquiring... shit. That is,
> possessions that we don't really need, and soon don't really want, and
> quickly discard in favor of more... shit.
>
> Is that really the best goal in life?
>
> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

SMS

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
>> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
>> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
> helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
> and the planet.

And of course Frank's statement is incorrect to begin with.

First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
scientific studies have shown to be valuable.

Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.

Third, it's not a hat.

As you pointed out in an earlier post, "cyclehelmets.org" is a
collection of agenda-driven babble, with no scientific basis for most of
their statements, and almost no citations. Take anything that they, or
their promoters write with many, many grains of salt. Sadly, if anyone
actually took their site seriously, it could result in a lot more
cycling deaths.

It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
helmet. A 13 year old in San Ramon was hit by a drunk driver, and she
suffered a concussion, but her helmet saved her from much more serious
injuries. There were three other non-fatal accidents as well.

Frank Krygowski

On May 23, 3:16 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> >> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> >> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> And of course Frank's statement is incorrect to begin with.
>
> First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
> scientific studies have shown to be valuable.

As has been pointed out many times before: Most "case-control"
studies have claimed benefits for helmets, up to the record prediction
of "85% reduction in head injuries." But such studies cannot help but
be flawed by using self-selected subjects - a problem that would void
any serious study. When non-self-selected data is used, helmets are
NOT seen to help.

Example: Kids in all of New Zealand were forced to wear helmets.
Helmet use by kids suddenly jumped from about 30% to about 90%. There
was NO detectable benefit in hospitalizations. But there was the
usual decrease in bike riding.

Case-control studies predict wonderful benefits if everyone wears
helmets. But actual studies of entire populations find no benefit
when everyone wears helmets. Guess which style of studies the helmet
industry funds?

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131

> Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
> mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.

Try googling "define: polystyrene"

Results:

"A lightweight plastic often used in food service..."

"A plastic that comes in two forms - solid and expanded..."

"A type of plastic foam. It is often used in insulation, plates, egg
cartons, coffee cups and disposable food containers. Anything made of
this product is not very biodegradable and is also difficult to
recycle..."

"A plastic material..."

> Third, it's not a hat.

:-) And where do you wear _yours_?


> It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
> Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
> that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
> helmet.

Annually in the US, there are about 75,000 deaths from head
injuries.

Roughly 35,000 of them happen inside cars. Most of the rest happen in
simple falls around the home.

A maximum of about 600 happen to cyclists, probably less.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in
bicycle deaths caused by massive helmet wearing, despite the doctors
who have bought the publicity, but not read the real research.

Will those doctors get behind this campaign?

http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html

- Frank Krygowski

N8N

On May 22, 1:32*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?

Now I'm gonna have nightmares.

nate

(jealously hoarding all the S-K tools that I inherited from my late
grandfather...)

N8N

On May 22, 10:58*pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
> facing the street?

If I could buy a mcmansion for $200K I would consider drinking the
kool-aid.

You don't wanna know how much we paid for our tiny 1940's house on an
equally tiny lot. DC area real estate is ludicrous, even after the
recent "adjustments."

nate

Peter Cole

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Will those doctors get behind this campaign?
>
> http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html

Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
(other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
bike rides.

SMS

N8N wrote:
> On May 22, 10:58 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
>> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
>> facing the street?
>
> If I could buy a mcmansion for $200K I would consider drinking the
> kool-aid.
>
> You don't wanna know how much we paid for our tiny 1940's house on an
> equally tiny lot. DC area real estate is ludicrous, even after the
> recent "adjustments."

Try the good cities in the Bay Area, i.e. Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc. The
McMansions (or monster houses as they're called here) would sell for
about $2,000,000. The older tract homes, often with more character but
less square feet can be purchased for 1 to 1.5 million. Plus they've not
come down with the real estate slump, though they haven't been going up
either. The city's with top-rated public schools have been immune (so
far) from the real estate slump in the Bay Area. The areas with bad
public schools have seen big declines, 20-35%. When the school bond
measures are on the ballot even those without school kids vote for them.

SMS

Peter Cole wrote:

> Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> bike rides.

With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
help a whole lot more. That web site mentions race car drivers, but
AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
than riding a bicycle.

There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
in head-impact crashes on bicycles, and no one disputes the benefits of
helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
disputes it). Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?

Frank Krygowski

On May 23, 4:27 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> > my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> > (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> > bike rides.
>
> With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
> help a whole lot more.

My cars don't have those side curtain airbags. In fact, none of the
cars I've ever owned have had those. In fact, only a tiny percentage
of cars on the road have those. Do yours?

What should we do about the horror of people riding helmetless in cars
without side curtain air bags? This tragedy will be sure to continue
for at least fifteen years, until all cars without completely
inflatable interiors are off the road. (Oh, the humanity!)

And why should we spend hundreds of dollars for sophisticated
explosive air bags and sensitive electronic triggers, when the same
could be achieved by a thin foam hat?

> That web site mentions race car drivers, but
> AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
> curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
> than riding a bicycle.

It certainly is! Because that "steel safety cage" is what causes the
greatest number of the head injury fatalities in America. (Well, that
and the side window glass.) That's what your head impacts during a
car crash.

> There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
> in head-impact crashes on bicycles,

And many better studies showing that entire populations donning
helmets do not demonstrate reduced head injury rates, once you account
for the inevitable drop in cycling.

> and no one disputes the benefits of
> helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
> cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
> disputes it).

Steven, I know you purport to not read my posts - despite occasionally
slipping and responding to them. Bbut surely, it's sunk in by now
that even if 90% of the cyclists in a country wear helmets every time
they ride, the rate of serious head injury does not decrease! The
citations have been given so many times, you should have them
memorized.

Now tell us: Given that the above is true, how do you justify your
statement "no one disputes the benefits of helmets should a head
impact crash occur"?

It seems the possibilities are these:

a) People get into lots more head impact crashes once they start
wearing helmets, and this cancels out their supposed protective
benefits.

b) Helmets protect against some aspects of impact (like, direct
impact at low enough speeds) but worsen other aspects (like, changing
oblique near misses into glancing blows that sharply rotate the brain,
or otherwise increasing the more damaging rotational acceleration).

c) Helmets simply don't help at all, except for impacts that wouldn't
have caused serious injury anyway. They are merely "scratch & bruise"
protection.

Which of those viewpoints do you subscribe to? Or is there some other
explanation?

> Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
> benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?

See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nigel.html

or http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html

I once had a link to the original study, but it seems to have expired.

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole

SMS wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
>> my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
>> (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
>> bike rides.
>
> With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
> help a whole lot more. That web site mentions race car drivers, but
> AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
> curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
> than riding a bicycle.
>
> There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
> in head-impact crashes on bicycles, and no one disputes the benefits of
> helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
> cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
> disputes it). Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
> benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?

I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
(and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.

Frank Krygowski

On May 24, 11:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.

And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.

Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
medical license.

- Frank Krygowski

Mike Jacoubowsky

>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> medical license.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
made on cyclehelmets.org

Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
data yourself.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f678f772-00aa-4ec1-b271-c83cf4ccae2c@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 11:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> medical license.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>