Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[[email protected]]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Why? At least part of the reason was the well-documented tendency to
> > "use up" the extra safety of the brake system. They were aware that
> > the system was wonderful, and they'd take advantage of it by driving
> > closer to the limit.
>
> Is there any compelling data that shows this was actually happening...
> or is it just assumed based on collision statistics? I can think of
> other possibilities...

There is very good data in favor of risk compensation. Carl's
mentioned one study that's available online. I'll again point to the
book _Risk_ by John Adams, an entire volume on good intentioned, but
thoroughly mistaken "safety" efforts. It has many examples of risk
compensation.

Warning: It's a difficult book to find, and not an easy read. I had
to go to a university inter-library loan system to borrow a copy. But
it was worth it.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
>
> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS BEST
> FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the lid
> wars on here.)

Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
the total unbalance in the information being presented to the public.

We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one must
never ride a bike without a helmet. The vast majority include scary
numbers about deaths while bicycling, debilitating head injuries, and
wonderful protection levels of helmets, including the old (mistaken)
chestnut that bike helmets prevent 85% of the problem. Many of these
agencies are well funded and push their agenda at every opportunity.

We have very few agencies pointing out that the danger figures are
misrepresented, the design standards of helmets are pitifully low, and
the actual benefits of helmets are negligible as shown in large
population studies. (Why the disparity in availability of information?
I suggest you follow the money.)

To even _locate_ helmet-skeptic information, one has to personally
develop some skepticism regarding helmets, and become aware that there
are serious scientists that share that skepticism and publish
supporting data. But how can that happen among the constant barrage
from the helmeteers?


Frankly, Sorni, I think you're probably a good example of the problem.
I doubt very much that you've developed enough skepticism to seriously
look at both sides of the debate. I doubt you've read more than one
serious paper on the topic. And I doubt you will.

The most we can hope is that you'll assume all opinions are based on as
little study as yours, and proclaim them all equal.

Of course, you'll be ignoring the fact that the many people who (like
myself) have gone from helmet promoting to helmet skepticism have done
so specifically because of studying the data.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> I've seen helmets for under $15 that seem to be completely adequate. Is
> that still not "cheap"?

Our bike club has gathered stolen or otherwise "found" bikes from
police auctions, rehabbed the bikes, and GIVEN them away to poor
families, who have told us they couldn't have afforded to pay even $20
for a garage sale bike.

For such a family, a $15 helmet is NOT cheap.

You'll probably never hear from such families in these discussions.
They're not apt to fire up their personal computer and post to the
internet using their DSL lines. But they're out there, trying to
stretch their food stamps so they can pay the water bill.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
>> injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
>> contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT
>> SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue
>> from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
>
> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the public.
>
> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one must
> never ride a bike without a helmet.

Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a bit. I
know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a fair number of
bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS (one way or the other).

> The vast majority include scary
> numbers about deaths while bicycling, debilitating head injuries, and
> wonderful protection levels of helmets, including the old (mistaken)
> chestnut that bike helmets prevent 85% of the problem. Many of these
> agencies are well funded and push their agenda at every opportunity.
>
> We have very few agencies pointing out that the danger figures are
> misrepresented, the design standards of helmets are pitifully low, and
> the actual benefits of helmets are negligible as shown in large
> population studies. (Why the disparity in availability of
> information? I suggest you follow the money.)

Agencies. Maybe they're wire-tapping you! <eg>

> To even _locate_ helmet-skeptic information, one has to personally
> develop some skepticism regarding helmets, and become aware that there
> are serious scientists that share that skepticism and publish
> supporting data. But how can that happen among the constant barrage
> from the helmeteers?
>
>
> Frankly, Sorni, I think you're probably a good example of the problem.
> I doubt very much that you've developed enough skepticism to seriously
> look at both sides of the debate. I doubt you've read more than one
> serious paper on the topic. And I doubt you will.

Just scrolling (and scrolling!) through yet another diatribe, Frank, and saw
my name. How can I make this clear: I DON'T NEED TO READ A "SERIOUS PAPER"
ON EVERY FREAKING THING IN MY LIFE. I don't need "data" to help me make
simple, basic decisions. Sorry to hear you do.

> The most we can hope is that you'll assume all opinions are based on
> as little study as yours, and proclaim them all equal.

Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid, Frank. Joe wears and believes in
helmets. Jimmy doesn't. SO WHAT?!?

> Of course, you'll be ignoring the fact that the many people who (like
> myself) have gone from helmet promoting to helmet skepticism have done
> so specifically because of studying the data.

Fine. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.

Off for a rare (lately) mtb ride in a bit. Lidded.

BS

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > I've seen helmets for under $15 that seem to be completely adequate. Is
> > that still not "cheap"?
>
> Our bike club has gathered stolen or otherwise "found" bikes from
> police auctions, rehabbed the bikes, and GIVEN them away to poor
> families, who have told us they couldn't have afforded to pay even $20
> for a garage sale bike.
>
> For such a family, a $15 helmet is NOT cheap.
>
> You'll probably never hear from such families in these discussions.
> They're not apt to fire up their personal computer and post to the
> internet using their DSL lines. But they're out there, trying to
> stretch their food stamps so they can pay the water bill.
>


Troxel "Safe Tech" offers direct (i.e., no "middlemen" such as
distributors and retailers) sales of basic, soundly designed helmets to
"recognized groups and organizations". I believe these helmets net out
in the $10 and under range; I'm sure your bike club would qualify as a
"recognized group". Perhaps you guys should 'pass the hat' and offer
these poor families a free helmet to go with the bike.

http://www.troxelhelmets.com/safetech/st_prod.html

 

[Barnard Frederick]

Sorni says...

> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS BEST
> FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the lid
> wars on here.)
>
> L8, BS

Well, I hope we continue to have choice. However, the trend is not
looking good at this point, and that is what bothers me. MHL's are not
a separate issue. That's what it is all about. If there were no MHL's,
we wouldn't have 95% of the helmet debates here. If the freedom to ride
without a helmet were not threatened, I wouldn't waste cyber-ink on the
subject.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Barnard Frederick wrote:
> Sorni says...
>
> > How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> > injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> > contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS BEST
> > FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the lid
> > wars on here.)
> >
> > L8, BS
>
> Well, I hope we continue to have choice. However, the trend is not
> looking good at this point, and that is what bothers me. MHL's are not
> a separate issue. That's what it is all about. If there were no MHL's,
> we wouldn't have 95% of the helmet debates here. If the freedom to ride
> without a helmet were not threatened, I wouldn't waste cyber-ink on the
> subject.

I agree in opposing MHLs. But I do think them very unlikely (with the
possible exception of "children under 12").

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > I've seen helmets for under $15 that seem to be completely adequate. Is
> > > that still not "cheap"?
> >
> > Our bike club has gathered stolen or otherwise "found" bikes from
> > police auctions, rehabbed the bikes, and GIVEN them away to poor
> > families, who have told us they couldn't have afforded to pay even $20
> > for a garage sale bike.
> >
> > For such a family, a $15 helmet is NOT cheap.
>
> Troxel "Safe Tech" offers direct (i.e., no "middlemen" such as
> distributors and retailers) sales of basic, soundly designed helmets to
> "recognized groups and organizations".

The point is, there are many families for whom a $15 helmet is too
expensive to consider. And telling these families that kids shouldn't
bike without a helmet is the same as telling these families not to let
their kids ride.

These families shouldn't have to hope some "recognized group" gets a
grant. In fact, they shouldn't have people spreading false worry about
the need for styrofoam hats.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 14:38:15 GMT, Jeff Starr
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 7 May 2006 09:19:33 -0400, Barnard Frederick
><[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Not at all. My Grandma cracked her egg, losing her balance in her
>basement. They had to do surgery, to relieve pressure on the brain.
>Now, rather than focus on the absurd notion that therefore old people
>should wear helmets at all times, let's consider that they are more
>apt to fall off a bicycle than trip in their basement.

[snip]

Dear Jeff,

I think that you're mistaken.

The elderly are far more likely to fall as pedestrians than
as bicyclists in every way--total falls, falls per hour,
falls per mile.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On 7 May 2006 11:07:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Ron Ruff wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Why? At least part of the reason was the well-documented tendency to
>> > "use up" the extra safety of the brake system. They were aware that
>> > the system was wonderful, and they'd take advantage of it by driving
>> > closer to the limit.
>>
>> Is there any compelling data that shows this was actually happening...
>> or is it just assumed based on collision statistics? I can think of
>> other possibilities...
>
>There is very good data in favor of risk compensation. Carl's
>mentioned one study that's available online. I'll again point to the
>book _Risk_ by John Adams, an entire volume on good intentioned, but
>thoroughly mistaken "safety" efforts. It has many examples of risk
>compensation.
>
>Warning: It's a difficult book to find, and not an easy read. I had
>to go to a university inter-library loan system to borrow a copy. But
>it was worth it.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

"A difficult book to find . . ."

Lies, lies, lies! Have you anti-book-buying zealots who
infest this newsgroup no shame at all?

It took me 30 seconds to find new and used copies of "Risk"
by John Adams:

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=LLvz9bIWORvgTYRssYz,kBqGUxY_2725005687_1:11:17

You're lying, lying, lying--it's not worth the $40 plus
shipping, or you would have bought it! The Munich library
study exposed this disgraceful behavior!!!

German cab drivers claimed that they really wanted to
improve themselves and stop acting like surly French
waiters, but they consistently refused to buy new copies of
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" as long as they
could get on the 6-month waiting list for the book at the
city library.

Everyone claims that they'll buy books, but they always want
to get them from the library!

Lies, lies, lies!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've seen helmets for under $15 that seem to be completely adequate. Is
> > > > that still not "cheap"?
> > >
> > > Our bike club has gathered stolen or otherwise "found" bikes from
> > > police auctions, rehabbed the bikes, and GIVEN them away to poor
> > > families, who have told us they couldn't have afforded to pay even $20
> > > for a garage sale bike.
> > >
> > > For such a family, a $15 helmet is NOT cheap.
> >
> > Troxel "Safe Tech" offers direct (i.e., no "middlemen" such as
> > distributors and retailers) sales of basic, soundly designed helmets to
> > "recognized groups and organizations".
>
> The point is, there are many families for whom a $15 helmet is too
> expensive to consider. And telling these families that kids shouldn't
> bike without a helmet is the same as telling these families not to let
> their kids ride.
>
> These families shouldn't have to hope some "recognized group" gets a
> grant. In fact, they shouldn't have people spreading false worry about
> the need for styrofoam hats.
>
>

I see that you snipped my suggestion that your club might take up a
collection to supply those inexpensive (under $10) helmets to the
indigent families *free of charge*. Even if you thought this was a poor
idea, at least acknowledge that it was put forth.

Is this furtive kind of snipping a spreading disease? Is it contagious?

I'm surprised at your dishonesty in this post, Frank. Perhaps your
anti-helmet fervor has short circuited your ethics?

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
>> Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
>>> injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
>>> contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT
>>> SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue
>>> from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
>>
>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the public.
>>
>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one must
>> never ride a bike without a helmet.
>
>Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a bit. I
>know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a fair number of
>bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS (one way or the other).

Dear Bill,

There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
where bicycle helmets are required by law.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[jtaylor]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >And let's not forget the old saw that
> > if you ever drop a helmet it must be immediately replaced.
>
> And if you leave it in a hot car, and if it's more than X years old,
> etc., etc., etc. The marketeers will say anything to make a buck.

Including, of course, that they will prevent 88% of brain injuries.

 

[jtaylor]

"Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not at all. My Grandma cracked her egg, losing her balance in her
> basement. They had to do surgery, to relieve pressure on the brain.
> Now, rather than focus on the absurd notion that therefore old people
> should wear helmets at all times, let's consider that they are more
> apt to fall off a bicycle than trip in their basement.

Ooops.

Someone's spouting opinion as fact; not the best course when the facts
disagree with opinion...

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS
BEST
> FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the lid
> wars on here.)
>


The problem is that they are _not_ a seperate issue.

As people become wrongly pursuaded that cycling is a dangerous activity that
requies helmets, three things happen:

a) MHL's get passed

b) cycling decreases

c) cycling-related head injuries remain the same or increase.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't need "data" to help me make
> simple, basic decisions.

But _your_ decisions, which are not suported by the data, limit _my_ ability
to decide. People who do not have "data" will rely instead on anecdote and
advertising, and because of that MHL's get passed.

 

[jtaylor]

"Barnard Frederick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorni says...
>
> > How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> > injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> > contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS
BEST
> > FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the
lid
> > wars on here.)
> >
> > L8, BS
>
> Well, I hope we continue to have choice. However, the trend is not
> looking good at this point, and that is what bothers me. MHL's are not
> a separate issue. That's what it is all about. If there were no MHL's,
> we wouldn't have 95% of the helmet debates here.

So, so, true.

But for those who believe in the magic power of helmets, this is not a
problem - well, not _their_ problem, anyway.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > >And let's not forget the old saw that
> > > if you ever drop a helmet it must be immediately replaced.
> >
> > And if you leave it in a hot car, and if it's more than X years old,
> > etc., etc., etc. The marketeers will say anything to make a buck.
>
> Including, of course, that they will prevent 88% of brain injuries.

IMO, those susceptible to the marketeer's siren song are already brain
damaged.

Zertz, anyone? How 'bout some buzz killing bar inserts? Titanium
fastener kits? $225 "special edition" helmets?

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> I agree in opposing MHLs. But I do think them very unlikely (with the
> possible exception of "children under 12").

They seem unlikely to anyone who doesn't hear of them happening. But
there are many, and there are always threats of more.

Tell me, did you hear when Spain instituted one?

Have you heard about the one recently proposed in Saskatoon, SK in
Canada, and barely fought down - for now?

Have you heard about the more than 20 juridictions in the state of
Washington?

I'm talking about all-ages MHLs. And there are plenty more all-ages
laws. There are also plenty for "kids" up to 18, or 16, or whatever.

Once again, what we seem to have is someone saying "I don't know
anything about this. And my opinion is just as valid as anyone
else's."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[jtaylor]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Barnard Frederick wrote:
> > Sorni says...
> >
> > > How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented an
> > > injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or even
> > > contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS
BEST
> > > FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate issue from 95% of the
lid
> > > wars on here.)
> > >
> > > L8, BS
> >
> > Well, I hope we continue to have choice. However, the trend is not
> > looking good at this point, and that is what bothers me. MHL's are not
> > a separate issue. That's what it is all about. If there were no MHL's,
> > we wouldn't have 95% of the helmet debates here. If the freedom to ride
> > without a helmet were not threatened, I wouldn't waste cyber-ink on the
> > subject.
>
> I agree in opposing MHLs. But I do think them very unlikely (with the
> possible exception of "children under 12").
>

20 years ago there were no - zero - helmet laws.

Now there are such laws in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and in 37 (at
least) of the United Sates of America.

It seems somehow fitting that "unlikely" is the term you use to describe
this situation; as such legislation comes about because people are unaware
of just how unlikely cycling is to produce head injuries, and how unlikely
helmets are to prevent them.