Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

  • Thread starter Elisa Francesca Roselli
  • Start date



Sorni wrote:

>
> If I descend a steep set of unfamiliar
> stairs, you bet I'd be cautious. (Hold a hand rail, go slow,
> whatever.) Just today on my ride I was looking back to say something
> to my friend and hit an unexpected bump/crease/hole pretty darned
> hard.


A great example of risk compensation in action.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Personally I am amused that a bike messenger would
> always be the one to remind an 'engineer' about
> the minimum standards of the scientific method.
> But this is just basic stuff I learned when I was in
> grade school; it's not like you have to be a
> professional researcher to understand the basic
> standards for what can be called data.
>


Would I prefer to trust flying in an aircraft designed by a qualified
engineer or a bike messenger who left education after grade school?
Moreover if it did crash would which would I trust more - a scientific
investigation into the causes and corrective actions by a qualified
engineer or by a grade school bike messenger? Tough call.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>gds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?
>>>>
>>>>I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
>>>>literally never come close to needing it.

>
>
>>>Only takes once.

>
>
>>Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
>>too.
>>
>>But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?

>
>
> If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in the
> vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely!
>


The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your
likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People
trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner, and
listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the
city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one
report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too, often).

The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to
require helmets, your saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then
those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real
question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up and
down 10 flights of stairs.

One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle based
activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding, urban
riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a fall then,
others. For example I average about 10,000km on road between unplanned
dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's do not
differentiate, between different cycling based activities. As for fast
moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill section of single-track is
much more likely to leave you dismounted, then any car that is
reasonable control by it's operator ever will.

W

W
 
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:04:25 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
>claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
>gave it up when the MHL was enacted. Then they claim that the number of
>cyclists has gone down, solely because of the MHL, yet the
>injury/fatality rate has declined only linearly with the alleged decline
>in the number of riders. There's at least three problems with their
>claims.


And at least one with yours: the documented decline in cyclists in,
say, Australia, precisely coincident with the law, as recorded by
automated counters and telephone surveys.

Unfortunately your head is so far up your own **** that you can't see
daylight, let alone tell fact from fiction.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On 11 Jan 2006 14:53:43 -0800, "peter" <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Yes, the group of people who
>chose to wore helmets prior to the accident that led them to the
>Harborview ER had relatively fewer head injuries than the *other group*
>of people who chose not to. But given that the two groups are
>different in many ways we can't conclude on that basis that the results
>would have been any different if everyone ( or no one) had worn helmets
>at the time of their accident.


Actually even this is not entirely true: the "control" group had,
IIRC, about seven times the crash rate, so the injury rate per capita
would have been broadly similar.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>>
>> If I descend a steep set of unfamiliar
>> stairs, you bet I'd be cautious. (Hold a hand rail, go slow,
>> whatever.) Just today on my ride I was looking back to say something
>> to my friend and hit an unexpected bump/crease/hole pretty darned
>> hard.

>
> A great example of risk compensation in action.


Bzzzt. Disagree. While there certainly ARE times when I'll ride a bit more
aggressively (I prefer...uninhibitedly?) because I'm wearing /some/
protective gear (helmet, gloves, even knee or arm warmers), this wasn't one
of them. We were just tooling along, and it I were a regular helmetless
rider I'd've thought nothing of turning my head to talk to him.

Like I said, it just takes once.

(And of course, the implication of YOUR argument is that one has to be
"white-knuckle" cautious if NOT wearing a lid; I'd prefer to /enjoy/ my
rides TYVM.)

Finally, just happened to see some crazy Aussies "tubing" down snow-covered
mountains in a Warren Miller film on a new (to me) HD channel last night.
Wild stuff. Every single one of them wore a helmet (no doubt mandated,
prolly by insurance). "Risk Compensation"? Hell yeah! So is a seat belt,
house insurance, safety goggles, etc. People take reasonable precautions
every day; I call it being smart.

Bill "good /morning/ now" S.
 
Sorni wrote:

>
> Bzzzt. Disagree. While there certainly ARE times when I'll ride a bit more
> aggressively (I prefer...uninhibitedly?) because I'm wearing /some/
> protective gear (helmet, gloves, even knee or arm warmers), this wasn't one
> of them. We were just tooling along, and it I were a regular helmetless
> rider I'd've thought nothing of turning my head to talk to him.
>


And you think those 1 million hospital treated head injuries were
"aggressively" walking along the street or "aggressively" descending
stairs or were they just doing an everyday activity when whoops....? It
only takes just one moment of inattention walking down the street so why
take the risk when wearing a helmet is so easy and could protect you?
Or does your logic tell you that provided you protect against the cause
of 1% of head injuries, you don't need to protect against the causes of
99% of head injuries?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
The Wogster wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one.
>>>>> I've literally never come close to needing it.

>>
>>
>>>> Only takes once.

>>
>>
>>> Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
>>> too.
>>>
>>> But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?

>>
>>
>> If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in
>> the vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely!
>>

>
> The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your


Please learn the difference between your and you're. You do that a LOT.
(Someone had to say it; sorry! :) )

> likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People
> trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner,
> and listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the
> city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one
> report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too,
> often).


> The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to
> require helmets,


Bzzzt. Straw man. (DOUBLE, in fact.) I don't advocate MHLs at all, and
that wasn't the topic when I jumped in this endless thread AFAIK. And I
certainly never said and don't think that "only cycling is dangerous...".

> your (!) saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then
> those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real
> question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up
> and down 10 flights of stairs.


The main differences are speed, obstacles, proximity to fast-moving heavy
things, chances of operator error, etc.

> One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle
> based activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding,
> urban riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a
> fall then, others. For example I average about 10,000km on road
> between unplanned dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's
> do not differentiate, between different cycling based
> activities. As for fast moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill
> section of single-track is much more likely to leave you dismounted, then
> any car that is
> reasonable control by it's operator ever will.


I, too, mountain bike quite a bit. (Or at least used to; predominantly
roadie nowadays.) I fell literally hundreds of times while learning, and
still do now and then. (Haven't had the pleasure on the road yet, over
10,500 miles.) I've banged my head off rocks a few times -- hard at least
twice -- and bashed into/off of branches and boulders many more times. I
also wear eye protection. "Risk Compensation"...or Common Sense?!?

Bill "OK, I'm out of this...really!" S.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>>
>> Bzzzt. Disagree. While there certainly ARE times when I'll ride a
>> bit more aggressively (I prefer...uninhibitedly?) because I'm
>> wearing /some/ protective gear (helmet, gloves, even knee or arm
>> warmers), this wasn't one of them. We were just tooling along, and
>> it I were a regular helmetless rider I'd've thought nothing of
>> turning my head to talk to him.

>
> And you think those 1 million hospital treated head injuries were
> "aggressively" walking along the street or "aggressively" descending
> stairs or were they just doing an everyday activity when whoops....?


You're the one who claimed risk compensation.

> It only takes just one moment of inattention walking down the street
> so why take the risk when wearing a helmet is so easy and could
> protect you? Or does your logic tell you that provided you protect
> against the cause of 1% of head injuries, you don't need to protect
> against the causes of 99% of head injuries?


Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I
first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder to avoid!), I
certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your argument.

I live and work at home. I ride my bike fairly hard and fast MUCH more
often than I "walk down the street". I wear/ use what seems to me to be
appropriate clothes/gear/equipment for that activity.

That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want!

Bill "OK, I'm /really/ out" S.
 
Sorni wrote:
>
> Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I
> first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder to avoid!), I
> certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your argument.
>


Not at all. Just curious why you don't consider it essential to wear a
helmet for other activities that are a far more likely cause you a head
injury. It was you that introduced "Only takes once". So if there is a
risk walking down the street or around the home and it "only takes once"
for you to suffer a head injury, why do you take the risk? You already
own a helmet so why take the risk of not wearing it. I'm curious as to
your logic.

>
> That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want!
>


Agreed but what I am curious about is why you applied different logic to
cycling compared to the rest of life when the risk is there in both and
it only takes once.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I
>> first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder
>> to avoid!), I certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your
>> argument.

>
> Not at all. Just curious why you don't consider it essential to wear
> a helmet for other activities that are a far more likely cause you a
> head injury. It was you that introduced "Only takes once". So if
> there is a risk walking down the street or around the home and it
> "only takes once" for you to suffer a head injury, why do you take
> the risk? You already own a helmet so why take the risk of not
> wearing it. I'm curious as to your logic.
>
>>
>> That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want!
>>

>
> Agreed but what I am curious about is why you applied different logic
> to cycling compared to the rest of life when the risk is there in
> both and it only takes once.


You sure like to over-snip.

I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip
myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even
though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's
insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over
10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet).

But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
(hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).

Like I said, do what YOU want and I'll do the same.

Bill "off to lidless yoga now" S.
 
Sorni wrote:
>
> But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
> sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
> (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).
>


Even though that accident exceeds the design spec of your helmet by a
factor of fourteen? You need a motorbike, not a cycle helmet.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
> But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole
> or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the
> pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).


Ouch. That kind of stuff is what motorbike helmets are for, not cycle
helmets!
 
Sorni wrote:
> But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
> sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
> (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).


Even though bike helmets are only designed to protect against a
stationary rider falling off sideways?

R.
 
Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
> > But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
> > sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
> > (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).

>
> Even though bike helmets are only designed to protect against a
> stationary rider falling off sideways?


's OK. He'd rather have a broken neck and scrambled brains than road
rash. His call.

...d
 
Sorni wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one.
>>>>>>I've literally never come close to needing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Only takes once.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
>>>>too.
>>>>
>>>>But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?
>>>
>>>
>>>If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in
>>>the vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely!
>>>

>>
>>The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your

>
>
> Please learn the difference between your and you're. You do that a LOT.
> (Someone had to say it; sorry! :) )


Yeah, I know, my thoughts often get ahead of my fingers, and then I pick
the wrong form of a word (my bad).

>
>
>>likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People
>>trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner,
>>and listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the
>>city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one
>>report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too,
>>often).

>
>
>>The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to
>>require helmets,

>
>
> Bzzzt. Straw man. (DOUBLE, in fact.) I don't advocate MHLs at all, and
> that wasn't the topic when I jumped in this endless thread AFAIK. And I
> certainly never said and don't think that "only cycling is dangerous...".


I didn't say you specifically did, however the MHL's imply that cycling
is so dangerous, that certain safety equipment is required, and then
sets such a low standard for that equipment that it's mostly useless
anyway. Two circumstances, recently getting into the car, I didn't
stoop low enough, and whacked my head on the frame, and my head hurt, so
that's a head injury, better require helmets to get into cars as well.

>>your (!) saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then
>>those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real
>>question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up
>>and down 10 flights of stairs.

>
> The main differences are speed, obstacles, proximity to fast-moving heavy
> things, chances of operator error, etc.
>


Forget speed, it's a poor argument, look at helmet standards, they are
so low, that a helmet isn't going to protect you much in a high speed,
multiple vehicle collision.

>>One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle
>>based activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding,
>>urban riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a
>>fall then, others. For example I average about 10,000km on road
>>between unplanned dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's
>>do not differentiate, between different cycling based
>>activities. As for fast moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill
>>section of single-track is much more likely to leave you dismounted, then
>>any car that is
>>reasonable control by it's operator ever will.

>
>
> I, too, mountain bike quite a bit. (Or at least used to; predominantly
> roadie nowadays.) I fell literally hundreds of times while learning, and
> still do now and then. (Haven't had the pleasure on the road yet, over
> 10,500 miles.) I've banged my head off rocks a few times -- hard at least
> twice -- and bashed into/off of branches and boulders many more times. I
> also wear eye protection. "Risk Compensation"...or Common Sense?!?


Common sense would dictate, that you reduce your chances of injury as
much as possible, that is why, if your working on a light switch in the
upstairs hallway, you turn off the circuit breaker, and put a piece of
duct tape over it, so nobody turns it back on.

I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding,
for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle
helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle,
they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible.

Here in Ontario, Canada a MHL for adults, has been defeated, for the
second time. They actually simply let it die on the order paper. The
reason, some low income people can afford an old bicycle, and it is
their primary transportation, but they can not always afford a helmet,
so forcing them to purchase a helmet for cycling, removes the bicycle as
a means of transportation, forcing them onto more expensive means of
transportation, like the under funded city transit system, which then
would want more money.....

W
 
Sorni wrote:

> "Risk Compensation"? Hell yeah! So is a seat belt,
> house insurance, safety goggles, etc.


Seriously: It's good you understand that. There are others arguing
from your position who can't even grasp the concept.

BTW, risk compensation itself is not a problem. Although it's never
stated this way, the problem is risk _over_compensation.

IOW, if a certain measure reduced risk by half, and as a result of
knowing that, a person increased his exposure by one third, he'd still
be ahead.

One problem with bike helmets is that they are promoted as preventing
85% of head injuries. And they don't come close - especially when you
consider the truly consequential brain injuries, not the cuts to the
ear and chin that were used to get that bogus number. Furthermore,
helmet promotion tends to imply that head injuries are the only thing
to worry about.

So you have folks thinking helmets prevent nearly 100% of their
injuries. They increase their risk greatly. But the reality is
helmets prevent very few, if any, serious injuries. People are worse
off because of trusting helmets.

Watch mountain bike riders careen down a fast, hazardous trail at 20+
mph for a perfect example.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Sorni wrote:

> I wear/ use what seems to me to be
> appropriate clothes/gear/equipment for that activity.


Your choice is your own, at least in most areas. (Some are not allowed
to choose.)

But how do you decide what "seems to be appropriate"?

Understand, up to 1975 in America, everybody thought no hat, or perhaps
a cotton cap with a brim, seemed appropriate for cycling. There was no
epidemic of serious head injuries that told anyone different. There
were no newspaper or magazine articles about the head injury danger of
cycling.

Then, with the Bell Biker came the articles explaining why you might
need such a thing. I recall Buycycling magazine justifying helmet
wearing by printing an article about a rider who fell and was
concussed. My friends and I were extremely skeptical. In all our
countless miles as children and adults, we'd never heard of such a
thing - and the rider was merely dazed, in any case.

It took energetic funding by Snell, and heavy promotion by Safe Kids,
The Harborview Institute and others to invent and publicize a
connection between cycling and head injury. Now, after 15 years of
work, they've made the connection "seem appropriate."

If it were not for their heavy advertising, it would "seem to be
appropriate" to call a foam hat ludicrous. It still seems that way for
the vast majority of the world's cyclists - those who haven't been
attacked with the propaganda, or who have enough experience to resist.


In defense of the people who buy the propaganda, this line of thought
is certainly not unique to cycling helmets. It's now being heavily
promoted that the ground under a jungle gym must be covered with rubber
- as if kids never climb trees. Now every surface a toddler may ever
touch must be padded with rubber and sanitized. Now cars come with
headlights that the drivers are incapable of turning off. Paper cups
of coffee have hazard warnings printed on the sides. Scissors and
knives come in boxes that say "Caution! Contents may be sharp!" and
so on.

One day, we may find it's illegal to cycle without a GPS, in case we
get lost, take a break in a coffeee shop to get out bearings, and
fatally scald ourselves.

- Frank Krygowski
 
The Wogster wrote:
>
> I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding,
> for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle
> helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle,
> they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible.
>


Interestingly I've come to the conclusion that a helmet is
counter-productive in your objectives. When I stopped wearing a helmet
a couple of years ago it was very noticeable that cars gave me more room
and more attention. I've come to the conclusion its because they
identify me as a person and a vulnerable one instead of a helmet and
protected

Try it yourself - its very difficult to identify or recognise someone
cycling with a helmet. You try to recognise them by their clothing and
helmet. If they are helmetless you can see their head and identify them
by their face which makes them human.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham