if cycling could be

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by iguana, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Bob wrote:
    > iguana wrote:
    >> if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    >> again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    >> would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    >> have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    >> adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    >> worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    >> Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

    >
    > Helmet laws are probably the # 1 reason people don't cycle. Okay, maybe
    > # 2. Or # 573.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Bob Hunt
    >

    Bob,
    It is #1 with me and a motorcycle. I would rather comb the rats out of
    my hair than have to deal with a helmet. I try to make it a point to be
    really safe on a motorcycle but I also realize that a crushed body is
    going to be just as fatal as a head injury. The only accident I got into
    where a full face helmet would have done we any good was in a 'CAR'.
    When I am on a bicycle the helmets required are really only good if you
    go right on top of your head, at which point you might get a Christoper
    Reeve injury like a broken neck. Again, at that point, the helmet has
    not done much good. One other point I must make is that a helmet does
    not protect your body from a car or truck as was pointed out to me by my
    grand daughter last year. A friend of hers, thinking the helmet was
    making her injury proof, rode in front of a large speeding truck. Her
    hand and wrist was deposited in front of my grand daughter, and the rest
    of her was similarly spread down the road, equaling dead. The helmet was
    a cause rather than a prevention since this kid had too much confidence.
    It is not an ideal world, as I have seen too many times.
    People will still get killed no matter what unless you just lock them away.
    Bill Baka
     


  2. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    iguana bwana wrote:
    > Bob wrote:
    >> iguana wrote:
    >>> if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    >>> again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    >>> would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    >>> have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    >>> adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    >>> worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    >>> Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

    >> Helmet laws are probably the # 1 reason people don't cycle.

    >
    > kids are tuff they don't need a helmet.
    >

    See my previous post.
    Bill
     
  3. Jim Flom

    Jim Flom Guest

    "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 20 Apr 2006 10:48:49 -0700, "Len" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
    >>of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.

    >
    > Get over it.
    > We've been ridiculed, harassed and attacked for over 130 years.


    This is it! RBR is the anti-Christian repository for all the persecution
    backlash of the last 130 years!

    Happy to help,

    JF
     
  4. GWood

    GWood Guest

    oh pa-leeese. I offered exactly as much data as the original troll I
    responded to. Somebody called me a helmet nazi? That's a good one, and
    based on considerable imaginary insight I might add.

    > I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
    > opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
    > 1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
    > benefit against truly serious injuries.


    Boy, it sure sounds like you've done exhaustive research into the situation.
    ALL that evidence. Wow. Benefit to risk ratio. Hard to argue with THAT!

    For me, 15 years riding motorbikes. 10 years riding mountain bikes. Enough
    head hits during those years that if I hadn't been wearing a lid I'd be
    drooling 24-7 these days instead of just on weekends. Two close doctor
    friends who have cumulatively spent many years in ER's in Canada and the US.
    They sure do have some interesting campfire stories regarding head injuries
    related to motor and off-raod biking.

    So my research is personal. So was my initial suggestion to the troll.

    > Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
    > populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
    > benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
    > the real world.


    Yup, let's take a small, self selected group of people and smack 'em on the
    head with a brick. Those not wearing helmets are free to argue the lack of
    material benefits from wearing a lid.

    OK, I'm bored. But boy that was fun.

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > GWood wrote:
    > > Troll.
    > >
    > > Please feel free to not wear a helmet. But ride really, really fast and
    > > take chances. Hopefully you'll spare us the public burden of a long term
    > > care facility.

    >
    > So GWood seems to believe there is some connection between bicycling
    > without a helmet and "public burden of a long term care facility."
    >
    > I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
    > opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
    > 1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
    > benefit against truly serious injuries.
    >
    > Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
    > populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
    > benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
    > the real world.
    >
    > So, GWood, got data?
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski
    >
     
  5. On 21 Apr 2006 18:47:38 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Excellent question. Nothing worse than arguing with the 'converted'.
    >Anecdotal evidence is very persuasive in the minds of the fanatics.


    You say that like it is a bad thing.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
     
  6. On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:00:11 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

    >That means you Frank.
    >I don't wear a helmet and don't crash, but even if I did I would not be
    >a long time burden on society by living at taxpayer expense in a $4,000
    >a month 'Waiting to die' home.


    Get real. I was controller of a group of those homes - prepared the
    financial pro formas for case management among other things -, with
    people ranging from mildly retarded to some propped up in motorized
    wheelchairs with suck tubes to stay alive. There were more there from
    burst aneurysms than accident. I'd worry more - from experience -
    about high blood pressure and sedentary life style than about that
    helmetless accident. In 45 years of riding and paying attention to
    local accidents, I know of two head injuries that severe from riding a
    bike, and one was wearing a helmet.

    Feel free to go back to the helmet wars - I personally wear one, but
    think it is anyone's choice. Helmet or not, I see a person on a bike
    and generally that's a good thing.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
     
  7. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Curtis L. Russell wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:00:11 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> That means you Frank.
    >> I don't wear a helmet and don't crash, but even if I did I would not be
    >> a long time burden on society by living at taxpayer expense in a $4,000
    >> a month 'Waiting to die' home.

    >
    > Get real. I was controller of a group of those homes - prepared the
    > financial pro formas for case management among other things -, with
    > people ranging from mildly retarded to some propped up in motorized
    > wheelchairs with suck tubes to stay alive. There were more there from
    > burst aneurysms than accident. I'd worry more - from experience -
    > about high blood pressure and sedentary life style than about that
    > helmetless accident. In 45 years of riding and paying attention to
    > local accidents, I know of two head injuries that severe from riding a
    > bike, and one was wearing a helmet.
    >
    > Feel free to go back to the helmet wars - I personally wear one, but
    > think it is anyone's choice. Helmet or not, I see a person on a bike
    > and generally that's a good thing.
    >
    > Curtis L. Russell
    > Odenton, MD (USA)
    > Just someone on two wheels...
    >

    I am not going back to the helmet wars. You have just agreed with me on
    the major point of riding, that it keeps people from the problems of a
    sedentary lifestyle. I am at that age where I see people, some friends
    even, younger than me either dying or having major health problems from
    lack of activity. This does not mean lack of cycling, just lack of
    anything. One friend who was happy just to be a grandmother, and do
    light housework only, along with being overweight and having diabetes,
    died suddenly 2 years ago from a sudden lung infection. Had she been in
    better shape from any kind of exercise and had a better immune system
    she would probably still be here today. Another friend had to have a 5
    way heart bypass at 49 due to his 10 hour days with a computer and no
    exercise off work. I am pro exercise, and anti couch potato, it is that
    simple.
    Bill Baka
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Marianne Promberger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Josh Hassol ([email protected]) wrote:
    >
    > : I agree that the majority of non-cyclists or "casual" cyclists I know
    > : regard cycling on the road as inherently dangerous. I guess it never
    > : occurred to me that this attitude would be caused by (or influenced) by
    > : the perceived need to wear a helmet. Are they really thinking "I need
    > : to wear a helment, therefore cycling must be dangerous"? Or do they
    > : already view cycling as dangerous, and therefore decide to wear
    > : helmets.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > : Can you point me toward the most recent statistical
    > : studies of helmet use and head injury rates?


    Be careful there Marianne. You'll make enemies of the helmet zealots if you
    demonstrate that the numbers of cyclists are far more effective in reducing
    cycling accidents (since drivers become used to cyclists and react properly)
    than wearing helmets regardless.

    The problem is that pushing helmets reduces the numbers of cyclists on the
    road and reduced numbers of cyclists cause drivers to be less aware of them
    which causes increased danger to individual cyclists. Pretty ugly spiral as
    was shown in Australia when cycling dropped by 30% with helmet laws and
    injuries and deaths only dropped a small percentage.
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> Len wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...
    >> >
    >> > One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    >> > hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    >> > asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    >> >
    >> > I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    >> >
    >> > He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    >> > have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    >> > for the helmet".

    >>
    >> Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
    >> source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
    >> hype.
    >>
    >> Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
    >> It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
    >> Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.
    >>
    >> Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
    >> good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
    >> two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
    >> the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
    >> even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
    >> effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.
    >>
    >> Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
    >> effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
    >> the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
    >> just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
    >> saved your life."
    >>
    >> > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    >> > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

    >>
    >> If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
    >> higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
    >> lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
    >> and not for lower ones.
    >>
    >> The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
    >> you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
    >> more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
    >> descending stairs, too.
    >>
    >> If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
    >> need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
    >> same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.
    >>
    >> And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
    >> we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
    >> helmets inside cars?
    >>
    >> - Frank Krygowski

    >
    > Don't forget, we should wear helmets in the shower, too.
    >
    > S.
    >
    > p.s. Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
    > protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
    > in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
    > other injuries. Just not significantly effective against head
    > injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
    > helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
    > as good public policy.


    Actually Frank knows whereof he speaks. Airbags cause FATALITIES all the
    time. Why do you think there's warnings that you MUST wear your seatbelts in
    an airbag fitted auto? Most fatal head injuries in cars are from side
    impacts and helmets are about twice as effective as airbags in side impacts
    since they have to slow the airbag fills down to keep from blowing your head
    off of your shoulders.

    How many accidents are caused because women now have to put their children
    in the back seat to protect them from being killed by airbags in accidents
    and then keep turning around and looking at the kid when they're driving?

    The "safety lobby" should probably be arrested.
     
  10. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Tom Kunich wrote:
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>> Len wrote:
    >>>> Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...
    >>>>
    >>>> One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    >>>> hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    >>>> asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    >>>>
    >>>> I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    >>>>
    >>>> He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    >>>> have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    >>>> for the helmet".
    >>> Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
    >>> source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
    >>> hype.
    >>>
    >>> Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
    >>> It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
    >>> Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.
    >>>
    >>> Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
    >>> good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
    >>> two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
    >>> the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
    >>> even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
    >>> effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.
    >>>
    >>> Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
    >>> effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
    >>> the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
    >>> just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
    >>> saved your life."
    >>>
    >>>> I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    >>>> anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.
    >>> If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
    >>> higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
    >>> lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
    >>> and not for lower ones.
    >>>
    >>> The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
    >>> you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
    >>> more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
    >>> descending stairs, too.
    >>>
    >>> If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
    >>> need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
    >>> same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.
    >>>
    >>> And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
    >>> we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
    >>> helmets inside cars?
    >>>
    >>> - Frank Krygowski

    >> Don't forget, we should wear helmets in the shower, too.
    >>
    >> S.
    >>
    >> p.s. Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
    >> protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
    >> in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
    >> other injuries. Just not significantly effective against head
    >> injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
    >> helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
    >> as good public policy.

    >
    > Actually Frank knows whereof he speaks. Airbags cause FATALITIES all the
    > time. Why do you think there's warnings that you MUST wear your seatbelts in
    > an airbag fitted auto? Most fatal head injuries in cars are from side
    > impacts and helmets are about twice as effective as airbags in side impacts
    > since they have to slow the airbag fills down to keep from blowing your head
    > off of your shoulders.
    >
    > How many accidents are caused because women now have to put their children
    > in the back seat to protect them from being killed by airbags in accidents
    > and then keep turning around and looking at the kid when they're driving?
    >
    > The "safety lobby" should probably be arrested.
    >
    >

    I have one to add to the fray which may well get me flamed, but here
    goes. Way back in the 70's I was in a car on a freeway stuck in a
    traffic jam caused by a car in a ditch. A tow truck had a cable
    stretched across all lanes trying to pull the car back onto the road.
    Along comes a cyclist with passenger who decides to speed between the
    cars and get on with it, at quite a bit more than the 30 MPH between car
    speed. He had a motorcycle helmet on as did his passenger but did not
    see the cable and ran into it. The driver was beheaded and the
    passenger, fortunately for him, was knocked off the bike by the impact
    of the driver's head, but still hospitalized. That made quite a story in
    the news, San Jose Mercury, and sort of unnerved me about my lane
    splitting habits on my 750 Kawasaki 2 stroke 3 cylinder hot rod. Helmets
    help, but some idiots are beyond all safety measures. This would only
    apply to a people powered bike if you went heads up into a barbed wire
    or something, but don't let a helmet give you false confidence either.
    There are creative ways to die just waiting to get you.
    Paying attention trumps helmets.
    Bill Baka
    True story, if you can get into the archives back then. It was highway
    280 I think at the time. Some renaming has occurred since I lived down
    there.
     
  11. Drew wrote:
    > "iguana" <[email protected]> wrote in message > worked in preventing
    > injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    >
    > > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.
    > >

    >
    > OK. Lets stop expecting the goverment to do everything, and do it
    > wourselves...


    http://www.russmo.com/05_09_20.html

    > I want the Feds to stay out of my life. They already have a stranglhold on
    > everything else....
     
Loading...
Loading...