Who says I don't want to learn? I doubt I can learn anything from you about helmets.You are clearly
biased. You pick and agenda and then go off and try to prove it to satisfy your ego.
Helmets are probably not as effective as the industry wants us to believe, but a lot more affective
than you state. I don't expect to learn anything from someone that has chosen a point of view and
then sought the evidence to prove it. Do you realize how common this is and how obvious it is to
everyone else? Scott Adams pokes fun at this with his "Dilbert Principal" which basically states
that the natural tendency of humans is to make up their minds first and then justify it afterwards.
This appears to be what you have done with helmets.
If your website had balanced data, (pros and cons of helmet use) then it would be a nice resource. I
did not read the whole thing and I admit I made up my mind rather quickly based on the first page
and what I remember from your previous helmet rants. If all you have is data that points to your
conclusion, then the value is greatly reduced and it dangerous to anyone to would draw conclusions
from it. If only one person leaves their helmet at home as a result of what you have published and
if that causes further injury where the helmet would have helped, then that is on your head. With
any safety issue, there is a moral obligation to assure that any bias errs on the side of safety,
and in my opinion, your data errs on the side of risky behavior. It reminds me of the bath houses in
San Francisco and how the people that wanted to continue using them complained that there was "no
evidence" that the bath houses caused any additional risk. You say the same thing about leaving your
helmet at home. You must have learned a lot from your campaigning back then.
"Tom Kunich" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just some guy who has graphed out the last 15 years of bicycle deaths and noted no difference
> whatsoever as helmet use has gone from near zero to probably 80%+. Just some guy who has talked to
> Dr. Shively in a Tranportation Committee hearing in Sacramento many years ago where he admitted
> that helmets have essentially no effect. Just some guy who has calculated what the helmet
> standards really mean and note that they are good for a collision of some couple of miles per hour
> and not the 12 mph advertised. Just some guy who has actually bothered to learn about helmets
> instead of taking the word of the company who invented the things.
>
> Just some guy who has published high praise for helmets that have saved lives in the past - one
> from Stevens who was wearing a clothe hat, one from a Pro racer who was wearing a hairnet and
> several from people who were wearing Skid Lids - a helmet manufactured by a company put out of
> business because they couldn't pass the very first Snell standard. All these people had high
> priase for helmets and talked about how their lives had been saved by them. And not one of these
> helmets could pass even the beginnings of the standards we have now. And these "modern" standards
> offer almost no protection at all.
>
> Tell me, if you don't want to actually learn something about subjects you post on, why do
> you bother?
>
> "Nick Burns" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > I agree that the amount of protection is exaggerated, but who are
> you to say
> > how much protection is "significant"?
> >
> >
> > "Tom Kunich" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> > > This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to
> convince
> > > people that a helmet is little more effective than a wooly cap so
> you
> > > might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts behind helmets try:
> > >
> > >
http://home.earthlink.net/~tkunich/_wsn/page2.html
> > >
> > >
> > > "John Wood" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hi:
> > > >
> > > > I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know
> that
> > > most
> > > > helmet laws came into effect early in the 1990's. I don't see
> any
> > > > decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to hover in the
> 600
> > > to
> > > > 800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I
> take
> > > > lightly, as a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash.
> But
> > > I am
> > > > just wondering if this helmet thing is just some mother-hen
> > > government
> > > > project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the
> road,
> > > and
> > > > not biking in the dark would be a better solution.
> > > >
> > > > Just a comment.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
