Helmet saves...

[Chris B.]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:44:49 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0500, <[email protected]>,
>"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>If politicians really cared about improving safety for cyclists, they would
>>fix the problem (bad drivers, bad cyclists), not band-aid the symptoms
>>(helmet laws).
>>
>>That's what I think,
>
>I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles
>we'll only see more of them enacted.

Yes, we will, absolutely.

Just as the CAA strongly supports "bike" paths that would force
cyclists off the road. That and helmets are the nearly sole emphasis
of 'cycling advocates', politicians (certainly here in Ontario -
particularly Toronto) and a surprisingly large number of self-loathing
cyclists.

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

 

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:54:03 -0500,
<[email protected]>, Chris B.
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles
>>we'll only see more of them enacted.
>
>Yes, we will, absolutely.
>
See, sometimes cynics can be right. We've shown that helmets don't
reduce injuries. They're ignoring the data which shows that cycling
adds more years to a person's life than cycling related injuries or
inactivity reduces it.
Obviously these laws aren't "for our own good".

>Just as the CAA strongly supports "bike" paths that would force
>cyclists off the road. That and helmets are the nearly sole emphasis
>of 'cycling advocates', politicians (certainly here in Ontario -
>particularly Toronto) and a surprisingly large number of self-loathing
>cyclists.

Beware of the creeping Green nazis.
They're scarier than the Raging Grannies and Critical Mass together.
--
zk

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Maggie wrote:

>
>
> What this newbie gets from all the accidents I am reading about is the
> following.....Stay in the park so you don't get killed or get hat hair
> from wearing a helmet. Not to be flip about all this, but all the
> accident stories make me feel as if riding a bike in traffic is not
> worth it. I am too old to die this young. I made it to age 50.....I'd
> like to keep going.

Maggie, don't think that. Try reading
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm to get an
unbiased look at the safety level of cycling. Or if you prefer a
woman's view, you could visit
http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/roadsafety.html

That Bicycling Life site has lots of info on how to ride safely, both in
traffic and elsewhere. Look in the "Safety Skills" section. You might
also read "Street Smarts" at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/

I'd say as long as you learn what to do, and gradually increase your
skill and confidence level, you'll have no trouble. At least, that's
how it happened for me.

Don't let the fearmongers scare you away from this beautiful activity.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Maggie]

> > Very witty comeback to the Doc. Can I steal it if I ever get in
> > incredibly good shape and end up in the ER???
> > http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/
>
> I wish I could claim credit for wittiness. I didn't realize what I'd said
> until after it came out. Then I thought to myself, "that was amazingly
> witty for someone lying here mangled, in shock, who hasn't yet had any pain
> killing drugs."
>
> I hope you won't find occassion to use it, but if you do, I hope you can.
>
> Bob C.

I hope (in my dreams) I find occasion to use it, because then I would
be in the ER in INCREDIBLY GOOD SHAPE. Do you know what that means
to someone my age. I forget what incredibly good shape feels like. I
forget what just plain ole "good shape" feels like....forget the
INCREDIBLY part. I am shooting for.....Wow, she is in pretty good
shape for a woman her age. ;-) I am also shooting for....getting out
of bed in the morning and feeling like I am 25 again. I think I might
be able to manage the PRETTY GOOD SHAPE FOR HER AGE part....but not
feeling 25 again. Oh well, that's life. I may be older but I'll never
be wiser.
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:57:08 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I honestly believe that a properly shaped Styrofoam surround is capable of
>protecting what is within it. T

Against what?

The foam in a helmet is roughly equivalent to that in which a computer
comes packed. If you dropped your computer in its packaging, you'd
expect it to be OK. If you hit it with a truck, you'd be stunned if
it wasn't flattened.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800, [email protected] (Maggie)
wrote:

>What this newbie gets from all the accidents I am reading about is the
>following.....Stay in the park so you don't get killed or get hat hair
>from wearing a helmet. Not to be flip about all this, but all the
>accident stories make me feel as if riding a bike in traffic is not
>worth it.

Some pro-helmet studies would count that as a good result.

The reality is, cycling is not especially dangerous. The risk of a
crash is low, and the risk of a head injury should a crash occur is no
greater than it is for pedestrians.

If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[PK]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800, [email protected] (Maggie)
> wrote:
>
>
> If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle
>


Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are
infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets?

pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle

>Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are
>infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets?

I don't really have an opinion. There is some evidence to suggest
that head injury risk goes down when motorcycle helmet laws are
repealed, and the death rate in British motorcyclists certainly rose
relative to all other road users when the law was introduced, so the
risk compensation thesis looks on solid ground to me, but I haven't
studied it in anything like enough detail to have more than a gut feel
about it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[AustinMN]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:57:08 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I honestly believe that a properly shaped Styrofoam surround is capable of
>>protecting what is within it. T
>
> Against what?
>
> The foam in a helmet is roughly equivalent to that in which a computer
> comes packed. If you dropped your computer in its packaging, you'd
> expect it to be OK. If you hit it with a truck, you'd be stunned if
> it wasn't flattened.

Actually, the last computer I bout had somewhere on the order of 20-50 times
as much foam as a helmet. Id' still expect the computer to be done if hit
by a truck (or car or motorcycle or if dropped from 6 feet at 25 MPH).

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[Frank Krygowski]

PK wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On 9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800, [email protected] (Maggie)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle
>>
>
>
>
> Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are
> infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets?

FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen,
the average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury
are all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near
traffic or riding in a car.

But no, I don't think motorcycle helmets should be compulsory. Not
unless you also forbid being overweight, eating the "wrong" food, not
exercising, drinking at home, smoking, and other "naughty" behavior that
affects a person's life and health.

Radical that I am, I also believe a person should be allowed to climb
trees, climb rock walls, clean their gutters by standing on their roof,
kayak without a license, jog at night, fly ultralight aircraft, and lots
of other things that certain people might think dangerous.

In contrast to these things, preventing cycling without a helmet is even
less justifiable. Because in contrast to these things, cycling has
significant _positive_ benefits, both to the participant and to society.
It makes no sense to impose that restriction and thus discourage such
a beneficial activity.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Pete]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen, the
> average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury are
> all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near
> traffic or riding in a car.

Part of the problem with motorcycles is the new guy syndrome. Anyone can go
buy a vastly overpowered crotchrocket.

I'd be surprised if a LOT of those injuries/fatalities weren't in the first
year or so of ridership.

Pete

 

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:45:32 +0000, Pete wrote:

>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>> FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen, the
>> average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury are
>> all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near
>> traffic or riding in a car.
>
> Part of the problem with motorcycles is the new guy syndrome. Anyone can go
> buy a vastly overpowered crotchrocket.
>
> I'd be surprised if a LOT of those injuries/fatalities weren't in the first
> year or so of ridership.
>
> Pete

They are in the first year or two of ownership as the average life
expectancy of someone buying an 800cc+ motorbike is about two years. (At
least it was in NZ 15 years ago)

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Pete wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen, the
>>average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury are
>>all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near
>>traffic or riding in a car.
>
>
> Part of the problem with motorcycles is the new guy syndrome. Anyone can go
> buy a vastly overpowered crotchrocket.
>
> I'd be surprised if a LOT of those injuries/fatalities weren't in the first
> year or so of ridership.

I've wondered exactly the same thing.

I ride an antique BMW motorcycle (although I put much more mileage on
the bicycles). My motorcycle safety record almost matches my bike
safety record: two falls, both at walking speed, in 26 years of
motorcycling.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bulletproof 18-year-olds are responsible
for the vast majority of motorcycling's safety problems. After having
some of those guys pass me doing 80-mph wheelstands (literally!), it's
easy to believe.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:48:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I wouldn't be surprised if the bulletproof 18-year-olds are responsible
>for the vast majority of motorcycling's safety problems.

Over here it's the "born-again bikers" who rediscover motorcycling in
their mid-life crisis by which time their purchasing power vastly
outstrips their expertise.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University