Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?

[Tom Sherman]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:52 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There has never been any indication that ridership has suffered as the
>> result of an MHL. This doesn't mean that MHLs are a good idea, just that
>> fighting them with myths of reduced ridership is probably futile.
>
> How about a 36% drop? For teenagers it was over 50%.
> http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html
>
> Do you have any reason to claim that ridership did not drop anywhere?
>
Lidditism.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [...]
> You know what? The common sense and personal experience you relate in the
> paragraph above trump all the whole population studies and biased statistics
> you can drag into the discussion, and THAT (the former) is what the AHZs
> hate more than anything.

Sorni again exhibits his ignorance of how science functions. I suppose
scientists should just listen to talk radio hosts instead!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Mar 5, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>

[snip]

> I'm beginning to suspect ....

Then you may feel free to ignore my posts, Carl. that way, you will
not have to "suspect" anything, nor intimate that someone is lying
without actually having the courage to come right out and say so.

That's rather a nasty habit you have, Carl.

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 5:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:

First you said:
>>>>>>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and
>>>>>>> way too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle
>>>>>>> crashes.

>> {NOTE NO MENTION OF RACING}


So I said:
>>>>>> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
>>>>>> universe. Time for a...trike?

>> {BASED ON NO MENTION OF RACING, NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS}



THEN you said:
>>>>> I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?

>> {POSTED LATER -- SEE THE NUMBER OF >s}


So I said:
>>>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.
>>>> (But at least you're wearing a helmet to protect YOUR head. Pity
>>>> the other riders!) I've only been a roadie for ~4 years (23,000
>>>> miles), but I haven't had a single crash. (Took my first and only
>>>> fall a few weeks ago when my backup bike dropped a chain on a very
>>>> steep hill; otherwise I haven't even hit the deck.)
>>
>>>> Mountain biking is a whole different story, but even then I haven't
>>>> crashed much lately compared to the earlier years.
>>
>>>> BTW, Ron, I don't wear a helmet to save my life; I wear it to
>>>> reduce the severity of or prevent injury. It's done just that
>>>> numerous (6-8 I'd guess) times during my mtb-ing days, out of
>>>> probably 30 or more falls/crashes/wipeouts. Your repeated
>>>> references to "fatalities" is completely besides the point.

>>>> HTH (BKIW)... BS


Still not getting it, you wrote:
>>> This is it Bill. Can you see it now... ? Or are you going to keep
>>> claiming that I never said anything about racing?


So I tried again:
>> Ron, count the little > thingys.
>>
>> You first posted (in a reply to Eddie P. I believe, long ago
>> plonked, so I only saw your reply) about all the crashes, so I said
>> you must really suck.
>>
>> *THEN* (enough emphasis for you???) you said that you've been in a
>> zillion races.
>>
>> *THEN* I said I'm surprised they let you enter events given your
>> penchant for crashing.
>>
>> GET IT NOW??? (You really can go back and read the thread; it won't
>> kill you unless you can't admit a mistake.)


Your whine con't:
>>> I'm beginning to understand why you are so disturbed if someone
>>> doesn't include the entire pages-long thread in their reply... you
>>> don't seem to be able remember what you read or replied to for more
>>> than a couple of minutes.

So I summed up:
>> You're either stupid or a liar. I fear the worst.
>>
>> Bill "someone else expalin it to him; I give up" S.


Now you say:
> I did read the thread of course. The reason I posted this was because
> you claimed that I'd never said anything about racing... when it was
> the very last line in the post that you replied to thus:
>
>>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.


So one last time:

I only said that after you brought racing into it. BEFORE that you had only
said you'd suffered 20+ road bike crashes at high speeds, which seems really
high by any standards. THEN you said -- in response to my comment that you
really crash a lot -- that you've been in 200 or whatever races.

I invite anyone to read thru the thread and see that I'm right. I only said
you never mention racing in regards to the FIRST exchange when you replied
to EP.

I really don't know how clearer I can make this. You're either very thick
or purposely obtuse.

BTW, I doubt that Lance Frigging Armstrong has been in as many "high-speed"
crashes as you have, so my second comment stands. I'm surprised they didn't
pull your license.

> You really should stick to verbal debating if you wish to use those
> tactics, since your internet antics are recorded for anyone to view.
> Of course it would take a great deal of effort for anyone to sift
> through the mountains of verbage (attached over and over again), and
> nobody cares to do that in order to learn something that is obvious
> anyway...

Ruff, you've gone from annoying (making up **** and spouting it as if fact)
to truly pathetic. GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS IN ORDER. I'm starting to
think you truly can't deal with linear timelines.

Anyway, I've seen enough. Get in your last lying whine; I'm done with you.

*PLONK*

BS (aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:44:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>LOL, I sometimes attend our city council meetings, and I don't think I'd
>have the patience to be a council person and have to listen to some of
>the wacky public input. The council has to be polite, but I've talked to
>some of them outside the confines of the chambers where they are able to
>say what they really think. If someone got up at a council meeting and
>started up with gardening helmets, foam hats, etc., I think that the
>council might lose control and break into uncontrollable laughter.

In my locale, the councilors themselves are the wacky ones.

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:21:34 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.
>
>If you're not crashing, you're not trying.

I usually use that as a reference point in snowboarding.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:35:50 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 5, 2:52 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There has never been any indication that ridership has suffered as the
>> result of an MHL. This doesn't mean that MHLs are a good idea, just that
>> fighting them with myths of reduced ridership is probably futile.
>
>How about a 36% drop? For teenagers it was over 50%.
>http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html
>
>Do you have any reason to claim that ridership did not drop anywhere?
>
>
Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
without being caused by them.
Kids do not ride bikes for fun anymore. They do not ride bikes to
school.
Heck, they don't play outside any more in many large cities - even
small cities and towns, because PLAYING is percieved as being unsafe.
Being OUTSIDE is percieved as being unsafe.
Kids get driven to school when they live less than 8 blocks from
school. They "play" video games. Their exercise is all organized
sports.

At the elementary school a block from my home, where my now 25 and 26
year old daughters went to school, there used to be 3 or 4 bike racks
that would be FULL every spring and fall day. There are now twice as
many students - with a whole field full of portable classrooms, and
virtually no bicycles MHL was in effect when my kids went to school.

Used to be a veritable troup of kids walking past the house to and
from school. Now the street is packed with mini-vans and SUVs before
and after school as concerned parents drop off and pick up their kids
as close to the school as the law allows.

At the highschool it's the same. Not too many bicycles, compared to
years ago. More cars.
And cars ARE more deadly to teanagers than bicycles.

And those who DO ride bikes for fun and to school keep "junker bikes"
to ride to school because good ones will be stolen or trashed when
parked - by young thugs who have nothing better to do with their time.
Even the junkers get the wheels bent and other parts torn off or
trashed.

ANd we live in a GOOD area.

As a young guy I'd jump on my bike and with a bunch of friends ride
off across town, or out of town a few miles to go hiking or fishing
and think nothing of it. 50 mile trips (round trip)were fairly
commonplace. We had no local transit, and most families only had one
car so we walked or biked to school and back.
I biked to and from work on the farm 6 miles out of town every weekend
during the school year, and most weekends during the summer. Half the
way was on a main highway - but the traffic was not nearly what it is
today.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 5, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'm beginning to suspect ....
>
> Then you may feel free to ignore my posts, Carl. that way, you will
> not have to "suspect" anything, nor intimate that someone is lying
> without actually having the courage to come right out and say so.
>
> That's rather a nasty habit you have, Carl.
>
You think?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Sherman]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and way
>>>>> too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle crashes.
>>>> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
>>>> universe. Time for a...trike?
>>> I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?
>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.
>
> If you're not crashing, you're not trying.
>
I thought that standard was for off-road riding?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Sherman]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:35:50 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 2:52 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There has never been any indication that ridership has suffered as the
>>> result of an MHL. This doesn't mean that MHLs are a good idea, just that
>>> fighting them with myths of reduced ridership is probably futile.
>> How about a 36% drop? For teenagers it was over 50%.
>> http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html
>>
>> Do you have any reason to claim that ridership did not drop anywhere?
>>
>>
> Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
> without being caused by them.
> Kids do not ride bikes for fun anymore. They do not ride bikes to
> school.
> Heck, they don't play outside any more in many large cities - even
> small cities and towns, because PLAYING is percieved as being unsafe.
> Being OUTSIDE is percieved as being unsafe.
> Kids get driven to school when they live less than 8 blocks from
> school. They "play" video games. Their exercise is all organized
> sports.
>
> At the elementary school a block from my home, where my now 25 and 26
> year old daughters went to school, there used to be 3 or 4 bike racks
> that would be FULL every spring and fall day. There are now twice as
> many students - with a whole field full of portable classrooms, and
> virtually no bicycles MHL was in effect when my kids went to school.
>
> Used to be a veritable troup of kids walking past the house to and
> from school. Now the street is packed with mini-vans and SUVs before
> and after school as concerned parents drop off and pick up their kids
> as close to the school as the law allows.
>
> At the highschool it's the same. Not too many bicycles, compared to
> years ago. More cars.
> And cars ARE more deadly to teanagers than bicycles.
>
> And those who DO ride bikes for fun and to school keep "junker bikes"
> to ride to school because good ones will be stolen or trashed when
> parked - by young thugs who have nothing better to do with their time.
> Even the junkers get the wheels bent and other parts torn off or
> trashed.
>
> ANd we live in a GOOD area.
>
> As a young guy I'd jump on my bike and with a bunch of friends ride
> off across town, or out of town a few miles to go hiking or fishing
> and think nothing of it. 50 mile trips (round trip)were fairly
> commonplace. We had no local transit, and most families only had one
> car so we walked or biked to school and back.
> I biked to and from work on the farm 6 miles out of town every weekend
> during the school year, and most weekends during the summer. Half the
> way was on a main highway - but the traffic was not nearly what it is
> today.
>
Sometimes the older days really were better (in my case late 1970's to
early 1980's).

It is too bad that people have not shown more restraint in breeding. The
world would be a much better place with only 1 to 2 billion people.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[SMS]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

> Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
> without being caused by them.
> Kids do not ride bikes for fun anymore. They do not ride bikes to
> school.

Well it's true about elementary school and bicycles, but in my city, the
middle school kids ride to school _big time_. The school my daughter
goes to is in its third year of existence. The administration totally
underestimated the number of kids riding to school, and hurriedly
installed a second bicycle parking area.

> Heck, they don't play outside any more in many large cities - even
> small cities and towns, because PLAYING is percieved as being unsafe.
> Being OUTSIDE is percieved as being unsafe.

Not sure where you are, but where I am the playgrounds are well used,
and at about third grade the kids start going there by themselves/

> Kids get driven to school when they live less than 8 blocks from
> school.

Uh, how about 1 block? At least for elementary school students.

> At the elementary school a block from my home, where my now 25 and 26
> year old daughters went to school, there used to be 3 or 4 bike racks
> that would be FULL every spring and fall day. There are now twice as
> many students - with a whole field full of portable classrooms, and
> virtually no bicycles MHL was in effect when my kids went to school.

Part of the problem is because there are twice as many students, there
are more parents driving kids to school. Often these parents drive so
poorly that other parents are reluctant to allow their kids to bike to
school (or walk to school). When there were the number of students that
the school and the neighborhood were designed for, rather than twice as
many, it was safer. In my area they closed many schools, tore them down,
and built housing. They then crammed more students into the remaining
schools by installing massive numbers of portables. By the time some us
organized to put a stop to this, it was too late.

 

[SMS]

still just me wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:44:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> LOL, I sometimes attend our city council meetings, and I don't think I'd
>> have the patience to be a council person and have to listen to some of
>> the wacky public input. The council has to be polite, but I've talked to
>> some of them outside the confines of the chambers where they are able to
>> say what they really think. If someone got up at a council meeting and
>> started up with gardening helmets, foam hats, etc., I think that the
>> council might lose control and break into uncontrollable laughter.
>
> In my locale, the councilors themselves are the wacky ones.

Where I live the majority are bought and paid for by the developers.
Their actions are totally predictable.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:51:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 5, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>> I'm beginning to suspect ....
>
>Then you may feel free to ignore my posts, Carl. that way, you will
>not have to "suspect" anything, nor intimate that someone is lying
>without actually having the courage to come right out and say so.
>
>That's rather a nasty habit you have, Carl.
>
>E.P.

Dear Ed,

Please come right out and prove my suspicions wrong--tell us what
impacts lie between fatal and serious injuries.

Maybe then we could see why you claim that helmets can reduce serious
injuries, but cannot affect fatal injuries.

I've asked several times after you made that curious claim. You keep
not answering plain questions, which is why I've become suspicious.

More and more, I suspect that you're just dodging after making a silly
statement.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So one last time:
>
> I only said that after you brought racing into it.  BEFORE that you had only
> said you'd suffered 20+ road bike crashes at high speeds, which seems really
> high by any standards.  THEN you said -- in response to my comment that you
> really crash a lot -- that you've been in 200 or whatever races.

To be more precise my reply was... over 400 actual road races and
crits (mostly crits), and a similar number of large group rides (those
100+ person affairs they have on weekends in LA). And this is all over
a mere 6 year period.
And then I mentioned that it was actually not a lot of crashes
considering how many races I'd been in... you replied that I hadn't
said anything about racing! Which is how this silly diversion got
started.

I've never been confused about the sequence and I'm still not.

> BTW, I doubt that Lance Frigging Armstrong has been in as many "high-speed"
> crashes as you have, so my second comment stands.  I'm surprised they didn't
> pull your license.

Get a clue. You obviously don't follow racing much. How many times did
Lance crash in that WC road race that he won?

> Anyway, I've seen enough.  Get in your last lying whine; I'm done with you.

Does this mean that you won't be bothering me anymore?

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 5, 10:13 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
> without being caused by them.

It happened in one year after the MHL, so I don't think these other
factors were to blame.

> Used to be a veritable troup of kids walking past the house to and
> from school. Now the street is packed with mini-vans and SUVs before
> and after school as concerned parents drop off and pick up their kids
> as close to the school as the law allows.

The local schools where I live sent letters to all the parents last
year telling them to *not* allow their children to ride bikes to
school. The only reason given was that they didn't want to deal with
it... whatever *it* was. I live in a good area also... pretty small
town.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 12:13 am, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:35:50 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 5, 2:52 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There has never been any indication that ridership has suffered as the
> >> result of an MHL. This doesn't mean that MHLs are a good idea, just that
> >> fighting them with myths of reduced ridership is probably futile.
>
> >How about a 36% drop? For teenagers it was over 50%.
> >http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/v...
>
> >Do you have any reason to claim that ridership did not drop anywhere?
>
> Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
> without being caused by them.

The drops in ridership that I've referred to in these discussions all
happened when helmet laws were imposed. They were sudden drops, not
gradual ones. And in at least one case, the reason for the drop was
confirmed by things like telephone surveys.

> Kids do not ride bikes for fun anymore. They do not ride bikes to school.

Yes, partly because their mommies have been convinced that cycling is
deadly. That's how you sell helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 6, 1:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:51:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 5, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> I'm beginning to suspect ....
>
> >Then you may feel free to ignore my posts, Carl.  that way, you will
> >not have to "suspect" anything, nor intimate that someone is lying
> >without actually having the courage to come right out and say so.
>
> >That's rather a nasty habit you have, Carl.
>
> >E.P.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Please come right out and prove my suspicions wrong--tell us what
> impacts lie between fatal and serious injuries.
>
> Maybe then we could see why you claim that helmets can reduce serious
> injuries, but cannot affect fatal injuries.
>
> I've asked several times after you made that curious claim. You keep
> not answering plain questions, which is why I've become suspicious.
>
> More and more, I suspect that you're just dodging after making a silly
> statement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25rxrq

or, for the bold

http://tinyurl.com/25rxrq

Go to "Habitat and Habits". Sound familiar?

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:52:02 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It is too bad that people have not shown more restraint in breeding. The
>world would be a much better place with only 1 to 2 billion people.

Nothing we couldn't fix with a few neutron bombs!

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:56 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> In my locale, the councilors themselves are the wacky ones.
>
>Where I live the majority are bought and paid for by the developers.
>Their actions are totally predictable.

Yeah... in that area they are predictable. They will always vote with
the developers. But, in other areas, their lack of common sense is
obvious.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Mar 5, 11:13 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:51:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 5, 5:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> I'm beginning to suspect ....
>
> >Then you may feel free to ignore my posts, Carl.  that way, you will
> >not have to "suspect" anything, nor intimate that someone is lying
> >without actually having the courage to come right out and say so.
>
> >That's rather a nasty habit you have, Carl.
>
> I've asked several times after you made that curious claim.

Anybody who can read plain English and is not trying to be an asshole
on the internet can figure out what the actual claims are, and not
ones made up by Carl Fogel.

That's a logical fallacy. You can look it up - it's called a "straw
man".

But please, feel free to quote the "claims" I'm making. Just so
everyone is clear. No paraphrasing. Actual quotes.

E.P.