Kivilev dies

[Ken McKisson]

WTF?

"Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... They show that video in spinning class sometimes-
> yech, not what you really want to see!

 

[Tom Kunich]

More **** from the peanut gallery. There are some 700 bicycle fatalities a year throughout the USA.
About half of those are due to head injuries. But let's say 500. There are some 30,000 emergency
rooms. That means that the average emergency room will see 0.016 bicycle fatalities each year.

How many years would it take to show a bulletin board full of pictures of actual fatalities let
alone one that showed "would have been save for the helmet"?

BTW, I saw a young woman burn to death in a car because her seatbelt wouldn't come undone.
Rare perhaps but shouldn't she have been the one to make that decision and not some buraucrat
in an office?

"Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9617DB.D5EB%[email protected]...
> Your observation reminds me of my 78 year old Dad who to this day
refuses to
> wear a seat belt while driving on the grounds that "if you're
strapped in,
> you can't be thrown free of the car, which has saved many lives."
Forget
> about all the evidence to the contrary, no bureaucrat is going to
tell him
> what he has to do in his own car.
>
> Re: my own helmet experience. I hit an virtually invisible frost
heave going
> 45mph on a decent and went over the bars. My Giro smacked the
pavement
> hard, destroying half of it, but according to the Doctor at Boulder Hospital, most certainly
> saving my life and my head from serious
injury. The
> Doc asked me if he could take a Polaroid of it, which he then put on
a
> bulletin board crowded with pics of similarly demolished head gear.
He told
> me that just about everybody on that board would either be dead or a vegetable if they hadn't been
> wearing a helmet. (People don't only
die, they
> also can suffer severely debilitating head injuries from head
plants.)
>
> Re the Pros: Personally, as a Fan, I don't enjoy seeing a Pro either
die or
> be severely injured for my entertainment from something that could
have been
> easily prevented without effecting the quality of the experience.
(Well, if
> you don't count the demise of those cute cycling caps.)
>
> Yes, helmets can be a distraction climbing in hot weather, but I'm
not aware
> of any evidence that a properly designed light weight modern helmet appreciably hurts the health
> or performance of an otherwise healthy
rider.
> More likely, when you are really suffering on a climb, you just
start to
> blame *everything* -- that extra kilo, those "heavy" rims, maybe a
slow tire
> leak?, your $%#*& helmet, etc. Helmets were a big issue in Hockey
when they
> were first introduced, where players are as conservative as the
peleton, but
> today, nobody gives them a second thought.
>
> And, there is a simple reason why every other professional wheeled
sport
> mandates helmets (even skate boarding)-- they save lives and prevent
or
> reduce many severe head injuries.
>
> Finally, the sight of LA and other big names bombing down the Alps
without a
> helmet is not a good example for young amateur riders who are much
less
> likely to be so skilled and much more likely to crack their skulls.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zeno
>
> > From: "Suz" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Yeah, but kunich et. al. know better. Just because multiple
studies show
> > that helmets save lives does not mean pros, or anyone else should
wear them,
> > because, you see, they know better than all those studies, as I am
sure they
> > have conducted multiple scientific studies of their own that show
that
> > helmets kill, or are completely useless. They will be sharing
those studies
> > with us at any moment.
> >
> > That's my opinion, and I'm standing by it!
> >
> > "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news[email protected]...
> >>> You claim that you landed square on your head is belied by the
fact
> >>> that a helmet is stressed to completely collapse at 12 mph. And
you
> >>> tell us there was a "chunk" out of the helmet. You see, helmets
cannot
> >>> absorb energy save by compression.
> >>
> >> Please cite some reputable engineering or medical studies to
support your
> >> bizarre claim that helmets do not prevent injuries.
> >>
> >> A quick Google search reveals that:
> >>
> >> 1) American College of Surgeons says:
> >> a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85
percent.
> >> Bicyclists hospitalized with head injury are 20 times more likely
to die
> > as
> >> those without head injury.
> >> a.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at
the time
> > of
> >> injury. Helmet use is estimated to prevent 75 percent of cycling
deaths.
> >> http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html
> >>
> >> 2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program
> > concludes
> >> that helmet use reduces injuries, and saves lives.
> >>
> >
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss 6c_e.h
> >> tml
> >>
> >> 3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action
> >> alone would
prevent an
> >> estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries
each year.
> >> Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as much
as 85%
> > and
> >> the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also
been shown
> > to
> >> reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%.
> >>
> >>
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm
> >>
> >> There are many more reputable studies that show that wearing a
helmet is a
> >> good way to prevent serious injuries and deaths.
> >>
> >>> What saved you wasn't your helmet, it was God himself and if you
can't
> >>> accept that you're a fool.
> >>>
> >>> Glad you're better though.
> >>>
> >>> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>>> << That all would be well and fine if fatal head injuries were
> >>>>> preventable by helmets and if there weren't many other
injuries on
> >>>>> bicycles that could kill a person. However, bicycle helmets DO
NOT
> >>>>> protect you and I'm quite surpised that someone that is
educated
> >>> as
> >>>>> yourself would make an implication that they would.>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In October I was hit by a car head on. I was probably doing in
the
> >>>> neighborhood of 28 mph when the oncoming car took a hard left
in
> >>> front of
> >>>> me -- so she was probably going in the neighborhood of 25 to
30,
> >>> also.
> >>>> After slamming into her right front fender, I went into her
> >>> windshield and
> >>>> was deflected nearly straight up -- about 20 feet by witness
> >>> accounts. I
> >>>> came down squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip,
broken
> >>> pelvis,
> >>>> broken ankle and a compression fracture of the spine.
> >>>>
> >>>> My helmet had a huge chunk out of it where I hit the ground. I
had
> >>> NO head
> >>>> injuries. I'm here and able to type this and I'm riding and
> >>> planning to do
> >>>> my first race since the crash this coming Saturday.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your matter-of-fact statement that helmets DO NOT protect you
is
> >>> ultimate
> >>>> arrogance and ignorance. I hope you never have to find out the
> >>> truth of
> >>>> what I say in the manner I did -- or the manner Kivilev did.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert L. Chambers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >

 

[Zeno]

> More **** from the peanut gallery. There are some 700 bicycle fatalities a year throughout the
> USA. About half of those are due to head injuries. But let's say 500. There are some 30,000
> emergency rooms. That means that the average emergency room will see 0.016 bicycle fatalities
> each year.

I wouldn't say Boulder County CO is in any way "average" in Bicycle riding. OTH, I'm sure there are
plenty of rural emergency rooms where there is little or no riding. Anyway, your point is spurious.
The board didn't reflect fatalities, it reflected helmets that were banged up covering heads that
weren't because the rider *was* wearing a helmet.

I am one such person. Although I broke a collar bone and was so banged up that I couldn't walk
unaided and had to spend the night in the Hospital, my head was undamaged, despite my helmet being a
point of impact and crumpling the way it should. I find the contention that I would not have
sustained serious head trauma wearing nothing but a cycling cap laughable. The Doc agreed.
>
> How many years would it take to show a bulletin board full of pictures of actual fatalities let
> alone one that showed "would have been save for the helmet"?
>

Spurious. I didn't say that the Doc said everyone of the people would have been dead. The point
was that their helmets suffered, so they didn't. He said some would have died. I'll take his
expertise on head trauma over yours. The helmets did not look good. Of course, if the Doc is right
then Helmets are saving a lot of lives. The deaths you site don't in anyway reflect the lives
saved by helmets

> BTW, I saw a young woman burn to death in a car because her seatbelt wouldn't come undone.
> Rare perhaps but shouldn't she have been the one to make that decision and not some bureaucrat
> in an office?
>

"Rare." Exactly. Too bad she didn't fasten it properly. Anyway that's just spurious Libertarian
noise -- personal freedom is another issue, this is about whether helmets do anything. But of course
that's what this really *is* all about for you, isn't it? Frantically juggling statistics to try and
support for one of your personal Libertarian hot button personal rights issues?

BTW, I've heard that the odds against a car actually bursting into flames in a real car
accident (unlike in the movies) are astronomical. Remarkable you happened to see one in person.
Colorful story.

"More **** from the Peanut Gallery."

zeno

> "Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9617DB.D5EB%[email protected]...
>> Your observation reminds me of my 78 year old Dad who to this day
> refuses to
>> wear a seat belt while driving on the grounds that "if you're
> strapped in,
>> you can't be thrown free of the car, which has saved many lives."
> Forget
>> about all the evidence to the contrary, no bureaucrat is going to
> tell him
>> what he has to do in his own car.
>>
>> Re: my own helmet experience. I hit an virtually invisible frost
> heave going
>> 45mph on a decent and went over the bars. My Giro smacked the
> pavement
>> hard, destroying half of it, but according to the Doctor at Boulder Hospital, most certainly
>> saving my life and my head from serious
> injury. The
>> Doc asked me if he could take a Polaroid of it, which he then put on
> a
>> bulletin board crowded with pics of similarly demolished head gear.
> He told
>> me that just about everybody on that board would either be dead or a vegetable if they hadn't
>> been wearing a helmet. (People don't only
> die, they
>> also can suffer severely debilitating head injuries from head
> plants.)
>>
>> Re the Pros: Personally, as a Fan, I don't enjoy seeing a Pro either
> die or
>> be severely injured for my entertainment from something that could
> have been
>> easily prevented without effecting the quality of the experience.
> (Well, if
>> you don't count the demise of those cute cycling caps.)
>>
>> Yes, helmets can be a distraction climbing in hot weather, but I'm
> not aware
>> of any evidence that a properly designed light weight modern helmet appreciably hurts the health
>> or performance of an otherwise healthy
> rider.
>> More likely, when you are really suffering on a climb, you just
> start to
>> blame *everything* -- that extra kilo, those "heavy" rims, maybe a
> slow tire
>> leak?, your $%#*& helmet, etc. Helmets were a big issue in Hockey
> when they
>> were first introduced, where players are as conservative as the
> peleton, but
>> today, nobody gives them a second thought.
>>
>> And, there is a simple reason why every other professional wheeled
> sport
>> mandates helmets (even skate boarding)-- they save lives and prevent
> or
>> reduce many severe head injuries.
>>
>> Finally, the sight of LA and other big names bombing down the Alps
> without a
>> helmet is not a good example for young amateur riders who are much
> less
>> likely to be so skilled and much more likely to crack their skulls.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Zeno
>>
>>> From: "Suz" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but kunich et. al. know better. Just because multiple
> studies show
>>> that helmets save lives does not mean pros, or anyone else should
> wear them,
>>> because, you see, they know better than all those studies, as I am
> sure they
>>> have conducted multiple scientific studies of their own that show
> that
>>> helmets kill, or are completely useless. They will be sharing
> those studies
>>> with us at any moment.
>>>
>>> That's my opinion, and I'm standing by it!
>>>
>>> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news[email protected]...
>>>>> You claim that you landed square on your head is belied by the
> fact
>>>>> that a helmet is stressed to completely collapse at 12 mph. And
> you
>>>>> tell us there was a "chunk" out of the helmet. You see, helmets
> cannot
>>>>> absorb energy save by compression.
>>>>
>>>> Please cite some reputable engineering or medical studies to
> support your
>>>> bizarre claim that helmets do not prevent injuries.
>>>>
>>>> A quick Google search reveals that:
>>>>
>>>> 1) American College of Surgeons says:
>>>> a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85
> percent.
>>>> Bicyclists hospitalized with head injury are 20 times more likely
> to die
>>> as
>>>> those without head injury.
>>>> a.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at
> the time
>>> of
>>>> injury. Helmet use is estimated to prevent 75 percent of cycling
> deaths.
>>>> http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html
>>>>
>>>> 2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program
>>> concludes
>>>> that helmet use reduces injuries, and saves lives.
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss 6c_e.h
>>>> tml
>>>>
>>>> 3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action
>>>> alone would
> prevent an
>>>> estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries
> each year.
>>>> Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as much
> as 85%
>>> and
>>>> the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also
> been shown
>>> to
>>>> reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%.
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm
>>>>
>>>> There are many more reputable studies that show that wearing a
> helmet is a
>>>> good way to prevent serious injuries and deaths.
>>>>
>>>>> What saved you wasn't your helmet, it was God himself and if you
> can't
>>>>> accept that you're a fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you're better though.
>>>>>
>>>>> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> << That all would be well and fine if fatal head injuries were
>>>>>>> preventable by helmets and if there weren't many other
> injuries on
>>>>>>> bicycles that could kill a person. However, bicycle helmets DO
> NOT
>>>>>>> protect you and I'm quite surpised that someone that is
> educated
>>>>> as
>>>>>>> yourself would make an implication that they would.>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In October I was hit by a car head on. I was probably doing in
> the
>>>>>> neighborhood of 28 mph when the oncoming car took a hard left
> in
>>>>> front of
>>>>>> me -- so she was probably going in the neighborhood of 25 to
> 30,
>>>>> also.
>>>>>> After slamming into her right front fender, I went into her
>>>>> windshield and
>>>>>> was deflected nearly straight up -- about 20 feet by witness
>>>>> accounts. I
>>>>>> came down squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip,
> broken
>>>>> pelvis,
>>>>>> broken ankle and a compression fracture of the spine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My helmet had a huge chunk out of it where I hit the ground. I
> had
>>>>> NO head
>>>>>> injuries. I'm here and able to type this and I'm riding and
>>>>> planning to do
>>>>>> my first race since the crash this coming Saturday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your matter-of-fact statement that helmets DO NOT protect you
> is
>>>>> ultimate
>>>>>> arrogance and ignorance. I hope you never have to find out the
>>>>> truth of
>>>>>> what I say in the manner I did -- or the manner Kivilev did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert L. Chambers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

 

[Tom Kunich]

I suggest you read the threads. If all you want to do is repeat over and over "Did not, did not" I
can just ignore you.

"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There you go again, Tom. I've asked several times for you to
provide
> evidence backing up your bizarre opinions. You've not responded.
Nobody is
> saying that helmets are perfect, or that you can't die with one
strapped on
> your head. But, many studies have demonstrated their efficacy:

 

[Tom Kunich]

Zeno, I don't have to "juggle" the statistics as the pro-helmet debaters have done. I only need to
show them:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html

"Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA965CB1.D83D%[email protected]...
>
> > More **** from the peanut gallery. There are some 700 bicycle fatalities a year throughout the
> > USA. About half of those are due
to
> > head injuries. But let's say 500. There are some 30,000 emergency rooms. That means that the
> > average emergency room will see 0.016 bicycle fatalities each year.
>
> I wouldn't say Boulder County CO is in any way "average" in Bicycle
riding.
> OTH, I'm sure there are plenty of rural emergency rooms where there
is
> little or no riding. Anyway, your point is spurious. The board
didn't
> reflect fatalities, it reflected helmets that were banged up
covering heads
> that weren't because the rider *was* wearing a helmet.
>
> I am one such person. Although I broke a collar bone and was so
banged up
> that I couldn't walk unaided and had to spend the night in the
Hospital, my
> head was undamaged, despite my helmet being a point of impact and
crumpling
> the way it should. I find the contention that I would not have
sustained
> serious head trauma wearing nothing but a cycling cap laughable.
The Doc
> agreed.
> >
> > How many years would it take to show a bulletin board full of
pictures
> > of actual fatalities let alone one that showed "would have been
save
> > for the helmet"?
> >
>
> Spurious. I didn't say that the Doc said everyone of the people
would have
> been dead. The point was that their helmets suffered, so they
didn't. He
> said some would have died. I'll take his expertise on head trauma
over
> yours. The helmets did not look good. Of course, if the Doc is right
then
> Helmets are saving a lot of lives. The deaths you site don't in
anyway
> reflect the lives saved by helmets
>
> > BTW, I saw a young woman burn to death in a car because her
seatbelt
> > wouldn't come undone. Rare perhaps but shouldn't she have been the
one
> > to make that decision and not some bureaucrat in an office?
> >
>
> "Rare." Exactly. Too bad she didn't fasten it properly. Anyway
that's just
> spurious Libertarian noise -- personal freedom is another issue,
this is
> about whether helmets do anything. But of course that's what this
really
> *is* all about for you, isn't it? Frantically juggling statistics
to try
> and support for one of your personal Libertarian hot button personal
rights
> issues?
>
> BTW, I've heard that the odds against a car actually bursting into
flames in
> a real car accident (unlike in the movies) are astronomical.
Remarkable you
> happened to see one in person. Colorful story.
>
> "More **** from the Peanut Gallery."
>
> zeno
>
>
> > "Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9617DB.D5EB%[email protected]...
> >> Your observation reminds me of my 78 year old Dad who to this day
> > refuses to
> >> wear a seat belt while driving on the grounds that "if you're
> > strapped in,
> >> you can't be thrown free of the car, which has saved many lives."
> > Forget
> >> about all the evidence to the contrary, no bureaucrat is going to
> > tell him
> >> what he has to do in his own car.
> >>
> >> Re: my own helmet experience. I hit an virtually invisible frost
> > heave going
> >> 45mph on a decent and went over the bars. My Giro smacked the
> > pavement
> >> hard, destroying half of it, but according to the Doctor at
Boulder
> >> Hospital, most certainly saving my life and my head from serious
> > injury. The
> >> Doc asked me if he could take a Polaroid of it, which he then put
on
> > a
> >> bulletin board crowded with pics of similarly demolished head
gear.
> > He told
> >> me that just about everybody on that board would either be dead
or a
> >> vegetable if they hadn't been wearing a helmet. (People don't
only
> > die, they
> >> also can suffer severely debilitating head injuries from head
> > plants.)
> >>
> >> Re the Pros: Personally, as a Fan, I don't enjoy seeing a Pro
either
> > die or
> >> be severely injured for my entertainment from something that
could
> > have been
> >> easily prevented without effecting the quality of the experience.
> > (Well, if
> >> you don't count the demise of those cute cycling caps.)
> >>
> >> Yes, helmets can be a distraction climbing in hot weather, but
I'm
> > not aware
> >> of any evidence that a properly designed light weight modern
helmet
> >> appreciably hurts the health or performance of an otherwise
healthy
> > rider.
> >> More likely, when you are really suffering on a climb, you just
> > start to
> >> blame *everything* -- that extra kilo, those "heavy" rims, maybe
a
> > slow tire
> >> leak?, your $%#*& helmet, etc. Helmets were a big issue in Hockey
> > when they
> >> were first introduced, where players are as conservative as the
> > peleton, but
> >> today, nobody gives them a second thought.
> >>
> >> And, there is a simple reason why every other professional
wheeled
> > sport
> >> mandates helmets (even skate boarding)-- they save lives and
prevent
> > or
> >> reduce many severe head injuries.
> >>
> >> Finally, the sight of LA and other big names bombing down the
Alps
> > without a
> >> helmet is not a good example for young amateur riders who are
much
> > less
> >> likely to be so skilled and much more likely to crack their
skulls.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Zeno
> >>
> >>> From: "Suz" <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, but kunich et. al. know better. Just because multiple
> > studies show
> >>> that helmets save lives does not mean pros, or anyone else
should
> > wear them,
> >>> because, you see, they know better than all those studies, as I
am
> > sure they
> >>> have conducted multiple scientific studies of their own that
show
> > that
> >>> helmets kill, or are completely useless. They will be sharing
> > those studies
> >>> with us at any moment.
> >>>
> >>> That's my opinion, and I'm standing by it!
> >>>
> >>> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>
news[email protected]...
> >>>>> You claim that you landed square on your head is belied by the
> > fact
> >>>>> that a helmet is stressed to completely collapse at 12 mph.
And
> > you
> >>>>> tell us there was a "chunk" out of the helmet. You see,
helmets
> > cannot
> >>>>> absorb energy save by compression.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please cite some reputable engineering or medical studies to
> > support your
> >>>> bizarre claim that helmets do not prevent injuries.
> >>>>
> >>>> A quick Google search reveals that:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) American College of Surgeons says:
> >>>> a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85
> > percent.
> >>>> Bicyclists hospitalized with head injury are 20 times more
likely
> > to die
> >>> as
> >>>> those without head injury.
> >>>> a.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet
at
> > the time
> >>> of
> >>>> injury. Helmet use is estimated to prevent 75 percent of
cycling
> > deaths.
> >>>> http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention
Program
> >>> concludes
> >>>> that helmet use reduces injuries, and saves lives.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss
> > 6c_e.h
> >>>> tml
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action
> >>>> alone would
> > prevent an
> >>>> estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries
> > each year.
> >>>> Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as
much
> > as 85%
> >>> and
> >>>> the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also
> > been shown
> >>> to
> >>>> reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> > http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> There are many more reputable studies that show that wearing a
> > helmet is a
> >>>> good way to prevent serious injuries and deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What saved you wasn't your helmet, it was God himself and if
you
> > can't
> >>>>> accept that you're a fool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Glad you're better though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> << That all would be well and fine if fatal head injuries
were
> >>>>>>> preventable by helmets and if there weren't many other
> > injuries on
> >>>>>>> bicycles that could kill a person. However, bicycle helmets
DO
> > NOT
> >>>>>>> protect you and I'm quite surpised that someone that is
> > educated
> >>>>> as
> >>>>>>> yourself would make an implication that they would.>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In October I was hit by a car head on. I was probably doing
in
> > the
> >>>>>> neighborhood of 28 mph when the oncoming car took a hard left
> > in
> >>>>> front of
> >>>>>> me -- so she was probably going in the neighborhood of 25 to
> > 30,
> >>>>> also.
> >>>>>> After slamming into her right front fender, I went into her
> >>>>> windshield and
> >>>>>> was deflected nearly straight up -- about 20 feet by witness
> >>>>> accounts. I
> >>>>>> came down squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip,
> > broken
> >>>>> pelvis,
> >>>>>> broken ankle and a compression fracture of the spine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My helmet had a huge chunk out of it where I hit the ground.
I
> > had
> >>>>> NO head
> >>>>>> injuries. I'm here and able to type this and I'm riding and
> >>>>> planning to do
> >>>>>> my first race since the crash this coming Saturday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your matter-of-fact statement that helmets DO NOT protect you
> > is
> >>>>> ultimate
> >>>>>> arrogance and ignorance. I hope you never have to find out
the
> >>>>> truth of
> >>>>>> what I say in the manner I did -- or the manner Kivilev did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Robert L. Chambers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >

 

[falter]

Gary German <gary_g@charter_nospamx_.net> wrote:
>1) American College of Surgeons says:
>a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent.

Give it a rest Gary. The AMA is looking out for their own bottom line. Surgeons don't study
statistics, they study surgery. Most of them don't even care if people know their numbers are
fabricated. All they want to do is scare kids off of bikes and unprofitable injuries to instead
develop heart disease and other more profitable diseases.

BTW, the rate of clinical obesity among adolescents is nearing 50% in some parts of the US. For the
first time in history a young person born in the US is expected to die younger than his parents.
This is due entirely to lack of exercise. Why aren't young people exercising, riding their bikes to
school, playing, etc? News and advertising, fear mongering, and the drive to sell (papers, helmets,
televisions, ...) exactly like Mr. German's clueless zealotry.

Congratulations for buying into their advert-journalisism Gary German, hook, line, and sinker.

>Bicyclists hospitalized with head injury are 20 times more likely to die as those without
>head injury.

Right, and every broken helmet is another life saved. What kind of crack do you smoke anyhow?

>3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet the US helmet
> manufacturering industry would employ hundreds of out of work bicyclists. Support your country,
> support the economy, buy a helmet....

Fred

 

[Suz]

Umm, my observation was made in sarcasm; I'm afraid that Kunich's however, is serious.

My experience in the medical field has taught me that studies can be slanted to show whatever it is
you are trying to prove. (see the studies Kunich cited). But there is no substitute for personal
experience. I personally can name at least 10 people (racers) who have crashed and broken,
shattered, or "melted" their helmets, and walked away with little more than a mild concussion (if
anything). Are we to believe that these people would have walked away unscathed had they not been
wearing helmets? The anti-helmet schmoes out there can do what they want with their own noggins, but
they can't convince me that helmets do no good.

As for the "personal freedom of professional racers issue"; I'm a little softer on that one, but
let's look at it this way; It is not so much about "personal freedom" as it is about a rule to
follow, or a "job hazard" protection. As a medical professional, I am REQUIRED to wear gloves and
other appropriate means of protection when there is a chance of coming into contact with bodily
fluids; it is mandated by OSHA, and that's the way it
is. It can be inconvenient, but I don't hear any of my co-workers crying about their "personal
freedom" being violated. I'm sure everyone else has some sort of job-safety precautions they
must follow, so why shouldn't the UCI mandate a helmet rule if they want to? If it can save one
life, it would be worth it.

-suz

"Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9617DB.D5EB%[email protected]...
> Your observation reminds me of my 78 year old Dad who to this day refuses
to
> wear a seat belt while driving on the grounds that "if you're strapped in, you can't be thrown
> free of the car, which has saved many lives." Forget about all the evidence to the contrary, no
> bureaucrat is going to tell him what he has to do in his own car.
>
> Re: my own helmet experience. I hit an virtually invisible frost heave
going
> 45mph on a decent and went over the bars. My Giro smacked the pavement hard, destroying half of
> it, but according to the Doctor at Boulder Hospital, most certainly saving my life and my head
> from serious injury.
The
> Doc asked me if he could take a Polaroid of it, which he then put on a bulletin board crowded with
> pics of similarly demolished head gear. He
told
> me that just about everybody on that board would either be dead or a vegetable if they hadn't been
> wearing a helmet. (People don't only die,
they
> also can suffer severely debilitating head injuries from head plants.)
>
> Re the Pros: Personally, as a Fan, I don't enjoy seeing a Pro either die
or
> be severely injured for my entertainment from something that could have
been
> easily prevented without effecting the quality of the experience. (Well,
if
> you don't count the demise of those cute cycling caps.)
>
> Yes, helmets can be a distraction climbing in hot weather, but I'm not
aware
> of any evidence that a properly designed light weight modern helmet appreciably hurts the health
> or performance of an otherwise healthy rider. More likely, when you are really suffering on a
> climb, you just start to blame *everything* -- that extra kilo, those "heavy" rims, maybe a slow
tire
> leak?, your $%#*& helmet, etc. Helmets were a big issue in Hockey when
they
> were first introduced, where players are as conservative as the peleton,
but
> today, nobody gives them a second thought.
>
> And, there is a simple reason why every other professional wheeled sport mandates helmets (even
> skate boarding)-- they save lives and prevent or reduce many severe head injuries.
>
> Finally, the sight of LA and other big names bombing down the Alps without
a
> helmet is not a good example for young amateur riders who are much less likely to be so skilled
> and much more likely to crack their skulls.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zeno
>
> > From: "Suz" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Yeah, but kunich et. al. know better. Just because multiple studies
show
> > that helmets save lives does not mean pros, or anyone else should wear
them,
> > because, you see, they know better than all those studies, as I am sure
they
> > have conducted multiple scientific studies of their own that show that helmets kill, or are
> > completely useless. They will be sharing those
studies
> > with us at any moment.
> >
> > That's my opinion, and I'm standing by it!
> >
> > "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news[email protected]...
> >>> You claim that you landed square on your head is belied by the fact that a helmet is stressed
> >>> to completely collapse at 12 mph. And you tell us there was a "chunk" out of the helmet. You
> >>> see, helmets cannot absorb energy save by compression.
> >>
> >> Please cite some reputable engineering or medical studies to support
your
> >> bizarre claim that helmets do not prevent injuries.
> >>
> >> A quick Google search reveals that:
> >>
> >> 1) American College of Surgeons says:
> >> a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. Bicyclists hospitalized
> >> with head injury are 20 times more likely to
die
> > as
> >> those without head injury.
> >> a.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the
time
> > of
> >> injury. Helmet use is estimated to prevent 75 percent of cycling
deaths.
> >> http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html
> >>
> >> 2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program
> > concludes
> >> that helmet use reduces injuries, and saves lives.
> >>
> >
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss6c_e.h
> >> tml
> >>
> >> 3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action
> >> alone would prevent
an
> >> estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries each
year.
> >> Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as much as
85%
> > and
> >> the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also been
shown
> > to
> >> reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%.
> >>
> >> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm
> >>
> >> There are many more reputable studies that show that wearing a helmet
is a
> >> good way to prevent serious injuries and deaths.
> >>
> >>> What saved you wasn't your helmet, it was God himself and if you can't accept that you're a
> >>> fool.
> >>>
> >>> Glad you're better though.
> >>>
> >>> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>>> << That all would be well and fine if fatal head injuries were
> >>>>> preventable by helmets and if there weren't many other injuries on bicycles that could kill
> >>>>> a person. However, bicycle helmets DO NOT protect you and I'm quite surpised that someone
> >>>>> that is educated
> >>> as
> >>>>> yourself would make an implication that they would.>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In October I was hit by a car head on. I was probably doing in the neighborhood of 28 mph
> >>>> when the oncoming car took a hard left in
> >>> front of
> >>>> me -- so she was probably going in the neighborhood of 25 to 30,
> >>> also.
> >>>> After slamming into her right front fender, I went into her
> >>> windshield and
> >>>> was deflected nearly straight up -- about 20 feet by witness
> >>> accounts. I
> >>>> came down squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip, broken
> >>> pelvis,
> >>>> broken ankle and a compression fracture of the spine.
> >>>>
> >>>> My helmet had a huge chunk out of it where I hit the ground. I had
> >>> NO head
> >>>> injuries. I'm here and able to type this and I'm riding and
> >>> planning to do
> >>>> my first race since the crash this coming Saturday.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your matter-of-fact statement that helmets DO NOT protect you is
> >>> ultimate
> >>>> arrogance and ignorance. I hope you never have to find out the
> >>> truth of
> >>>> what I say in the manner I did -- or the manner Kivilev did.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert L. Chambers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >

 

[Gary German]

I'm a "helmet nazi" because I think they can reduce injuries and deaths, and I cite studies and
recommendations from prestigious organizations that concur? It sounds like you've got a pretty low
threshold for the "Nazi" label...perhaps you've been listening to Rush for too long, eh?

BTW - If you'll review my posts, you will find that I have not been advocating for helmet laws
(assuming that's what you fear most).

I do think that the UCI should mandate them in the pro ranks, however, for the reasons I've
previously cited (i.e., to prevent injuries like poor Kivilev suffered, to level the pro playing
field, and to set a good example for youngsters).

re:
> Give it a rest Gary. The AMA is looking out for their own bottom line. Surgeons don't study
> statistics, they study surgery. Most of them don't even care if people know their numbers are
> fabricated. All they want to do is scare kids off of bikes and unprofitable injuries to instead
> develop heart disease and other more profitable diseases.

Yes, and like Kuntitch, you're so much smarter than all of those surgeons, medical researchers,
public policy analysts, transportation experts, etc. It's all a vast conspiracy to sell helmets
(I've heard the black helicopters are also involved).

<[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> Gary German <gary_g@charter_nospamx_.net> wrote:
> >1) American College of Surgeons says:
> >a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent.
>
> Give it a rest Gary. The AMA is looking out for their own bottom line. Surgeons don't study
> statistics, they study surgery. Most of them don't even care if people know their numbers are
> fabricated. All they want to do is scare kids off of bikes and unprofitable injuries to instead
> develop heart disease and other more profitable diseases.
>
> BTW, the rate of clinical obesity among adolescents is nearing 50% in some parts of the US. For
> the first time in history a young person born in the US is expected to die younger than his
> parents. This is due entirely to lack of exercise. Why aren't young people exercising, riding
> their bikes to school, playing, etc? News and advertising, fear mongering, and the drive to sell
> (papers, helmets, televisions, ...) exactly like Mr. German's clueless zealotry.
>
> Congratulations for buying into their advert-journalisism Gary German, hook, line, and sinker.
>
> >Bicyclists hospitalized with head injury are 20 times more likely to die
as
> >those without head injury.
>
> Right, and every broken helmet is another life saved. What kind of crack do you smoke anyhow?
>
> >3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet the US helmet
> > manufacturering industry would employ hundreds of out of work bicyclists. Support your
> > country, support the economy, buy a helmet....
>
> Fred

 

[Steven Bornfeld]

Suz wrote:
> Umm, my observation was made in sarcasm; I'm afraid that Kunich's however, is serious.
>
> My experience in the medical field has taught me that studies can be slanted to show whatever it
> is you are trying to prove. (see the studies Kunich cited). But there is no substitute for
> personal experience. I personally can name at least 10 people (racers) who have crashed and
> broken, shattered, or "melted" their helmets, and walked away with little more than a mild
> concussion (if anything). Are we to believe that these people would have walked away unscathed had
> they not been wearing helmets? The anti-helmet schmoes out there can do what they want with their
> own noggins, but they can't convince me that helmets do no good.
>
> As for the "personal freedom of professional racers issue"; I'm a little softer on that one, but
> let's look at it this way; It is not so much about "personal freedom" as it is about a rule to
> follow, or a "job hazard" protection. As a medical professional, I am REQUIRED to wear gloves and
> other appropriate means of protection when there is a chance of coming into contact with bodily
> fluids; it is mandated by OSHA, and that's the way it
> is. It can be inconvenient, but I don't hear any of my co-workers crying about their "personal
> freedom" being violated. I'm sure everyone else has some sort of job-safety precautions they
> must follow, so why shouldn't the UCI mandate a helmet rule if they want to? If it can save
> one life, it would be worth it.
>
> -suz

Thanks for this. Nice to hear someone in the trenches. This is the bugaboo topic for this
ng. I'm a dentist. in sci.med.dentistry, it's the "fluoride is a communist plot" and
"we're poisoning people with amalgams" crowd. In years of thousands of posts, I doubt
we've convinced anyone. Some people have to learn things the hard way. When I was a kid, I
wore my seat belt in the car because my Dad told me to. When I was a dental resident and
had to treat head/neck trauma (and lots of it), when I treated someone injured in a car
accident I asked if they wore seat belts. In the whole year, I don't remember one person
saying they did.

Steve

>
> "Zeno" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9617DB.D5EB%[email protected]...
>
>>Your observation reminds me of my 78 year old Dad who to this day refuses
>
> to
>
>>wear a seat belt while driving on the grounds that "if you're strapped in, you can't be thrown
>>free of the car, which has saved many lives." Forget about all the evidence to the contrary, no
>>bureaucrat is going to tell him what he has to do in his own car.
>>
>>Re: my own helmet experience. I hit an virtually invisible frost heave
>
> going
>
>>45mph on a decent and went over the bars. My Giro smacked the pavement hard, destroying half of
>>it, but according to the Doctor at Boulder Hospital, most certainly saving my life and my head
>>from serious injury.
>
> The
>
>>Doc asked me if he could take a Polaroid of it, which he then put on a bulletin board crowded with
>>pics of similarly demolished head gear. He
>
> told
>
>>me that just about everybody on that board would either be dead or a vegetable if they hadn't been
>>wearing a helmet. (People don't only die,
>
> they
>
>>also can suffer severely debilitating head injuries from head plants.)
>>
>>Re the Pros: Personally, as a Fan, I don't enjoy seeing a Pro either die
>
> or
>
>>be severely injured for my entertainment from something that could have
>
> been
>
>>easily prevented without effecting the quality of the experience. (Well,
>
> if
>
>>you don't count the demise of those cute cycling caps.)
>>
>>Yes, helmets can be a distraction climbing in hot weather, but I'm not
>
> aware
>
>>of any evidence that a properly designed light weight modern helmet appreciably hurts the health
>>or performance of an otherwise healthy rider. More likely, when you are really suffering on a
>>climb, you just start to blame *everything* -- that extra kilo, those "heavy" rims, maybe a slow
>
> tire
>
>>leak?, your $%#*& helmet, etc. Helmets were a big issue in Hockey when
>
> they
>
>>were first introduced, where players are as conservative as the peleton,
>
> but
>
>>today, nobody gives them a second thought.
>>
>>And, there is a simple reason why every other professional wheeled sport mandates helmets (even
>>skate boarding)-- they save lives and prevent or reduce many severe head injuries.
>>
>>Finally, the sight of LA and other big names bombing down the Alps without
>
> a
>
>>helmet is not a good example for young amateur riders who are much less likely to be so skilled
>>and much more likely to crack their skulls.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Zeno
>>
>>
>>>From: "Suz" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>Yeah, but kunich et. al. know better. Just because multiple studies
>>
> show
>
>>>that helmets save lives does not mean pros, or anyone else should wear
>>
> them,
>
>>>because, you see, they know better than all those studies, as I am sure
>>
> they
>
>>>have conducted multiple scientific studies of their own that show that helmets kill, or are
>>>completely useless. They will be sharing those
>>
> studies
>
>>>with us at any moment.
>>>
>>>That's my opinion, and I'm standing by it!
>>>
>>>"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>You claim that you landed square on your head is belied by the fact that a helmet is stressed
>>>>>to completely collapse at 12 mph. And you tell us there was a "chunk" out of the helmet. You
>>>>>see, helmets cannot absorb energy save by compression.
>>>>
>>>>Please cite some reputable engineering or medical studies to support
>>>
> your
>
>>>>bizarre claim that helmets do not prevent injuries.
>>>>
>>>>A quick Google search reveals that:
>>>>
>>>>1) American College of Surgeons says:
>>>>a.. Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. Bicyclists hospitalized
>>>> with head injury are 20 times more likely to
>>>
> die
>
>>>as
>>>
>>>>those without head injury.
>>>>a.. 98 percent of bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the
>>>
> time
>
>>>of
>>>
>>>>injury. Helmet use is estimated to prevent 75 percent of cycling
>>>
> deaths.
>
>>>>http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-38.html
>>>>
>>>>2) The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program
>>>
>>>concludes
>>>
>>>>that helmet use reduces injuries, and saves lives.
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/chirpp-schirpt/06nov95/iss6c_e.h
>
>>>>tml
>>>>
>>>>3) The Centers for Disease Control says: If every bicycle rider wore a helmet, that action alone
>>>> would prevent
>>>
> an
>
>>>>estimated 150 deaths and another 100,000 nonfatal head injuries each
>>>
> year.
>
>>>>Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by as much as
>>>
> 85%
>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%. Helmets have also been
>>>
> shown
>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/11_Bicycle_Related_Injuries.htm
>>>>
>>>>There are many more reputable studies that show that wearing a helmet
>>>
> is a
>
>>>>good way to prevent serious injuries and deaths.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What saved you wasn't your helmet, it was God himself and if you can't accept that you're a
>>>>>fool.
>>>>>
>>>>>Glad you're better though.
>>>>>
>>>>>"psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>><< That all would be well and fine if fatal head injuries were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>preventable by helmets and if there weren't many other injuries on bicycles that could kill a
>>>>>>>person. However, bicycle helmets DO NOT protect you and I'm quite surpised that someone that
>>>>>>>is educated
>>>>>>
>>>>>as
>>>>>
>>>>>>>yourself would make an implication that they would.>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In October I was hit by a car head on. I was probably doing in the neighborhood of 28 mph when
>>>>>>the oncoming car took a hard left in
>>>>>
>>>>>front of
>>>>>
>>>>>>me -- so she was probably going in the neighborhood of 25 to 30,
>>>>>
>>>>>also.
>>>>>
>>>>>>After slamming into her right front fender, I went into her
>>>>>
>>>>>windshield and
>>>>>
>>>>>>was deflected nearly straight up -- about 20 feet by witness
>>>>>
>>>>>accounts. I
>>>>>
>>>>>>came down squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip, broken
>>>>>
>>>>>pelvis,
>>>>>
>>>>>>broken ankle and a compression fracture of the spine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My helmet had a huge chunk out of it where I hit the ground. I had
>>>>>
>>>>>NO head
>>>>>
>>>>>>injuries. I'm here and able to type this and I'm riding and
>>>>>
>>>>>planning to do
>>>>>
>>>>>>my first race since the crash this coming Saturday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your matter-of-fact statement that helmets DO NOT protect you is
>>>>>
>>>>>ultimate
>>>>>
>>>>>>arrogance and ignorance. I hope you never have to find out the
>>>>>
>>>>>truth of
>>>>>
>>>>>>what I say in the manner I did -- or the manner Kivilev did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Robert L. Chambers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

 

[Kiem Madvanen]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> For the first time in history a young person born in the US is expected to die younger than his
> parents.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_he_me/cdc_li-
fe_expectancy

Dimwit.

Zub

 

[Daniel Connelly]

The story is about someone who's born today's grandparents, roughly, not them.

That term -- "the life expectency of someone born today", is an obvious error. It should be "the
life expectency of someone who died in the last year."

Dan

Kiem Madvanen wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>For the first time in history a young person born in the US is expected to die younger than his
>>parents.
>
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_he_me/cdc_-
> life_expectancy
>
> Dimwit.
>
> Zub

 

[Robert Chung]

"Daniel Connelly" <[email protected]> wrote
> The story is about someone who's born today's grandparents, roughly, not them.
>
> That term -- "the life expectency of someone born today", is an obvious error. It should be "the
> life expectency of someone who died in the last
year."

Um, why?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> My experience in the medical field has taught me that studies can be
slanted
> to show whatever it is you are trying to prove. (see the studies
Kunich
> cited).

The interesting thing is this: I am absolutely certain that Suz has never read the Skuffham study
and yet she feels compelled to denigrate it as being twisted for some specific purpose. Were she to
read it before making her comments she'd probably be vey surprised to find that Skuffham and his
team were pro-helmet and assumed that they would find a large bias towards helmets. When their study
showed no effects from helmet use they massaged the data again and again trying to find where they
"made their mistakes". They finally had to accept the reality of the study - that helmets really
don't have any effect.

The question to ask people who make comments like Suz has been making is, "Did you read the study?"

> But there is no substitute for personal experience.

I guess that's why they invented the mathematics of statistical analysis. Because personal
experience is so accurate in a rare event.

> The anti-helmet schmoes out there can do what they want with their own noggins, but they can't
> convince me that helmets do no good.

You just refuse to believe that increased care in your riding will have a far more reaching safety
benefit than a helmet don't you?

As for wearing rubber gloves? Not around me you won't.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm a "helmet nazi" because I think they can reduce injuries and
deaths, and
> I cite studies and recommendations from prestigious organizations
that
> concur?

Did you read those studies Gary? Or did you find a nice summary and print that because it agreed
with your feelings? BTW, summaries are often written for the people who funded the study such as the
summary of the Harborview Institute which mentioned that "85% fewer head injuries" line. If you read
the study you'd have discovered that they only found 67% fewer head injuries and claimed that they
THOUGHT that they could massage the math enough to get 85%. In other words that number which has
been bandied about for the last 20 years is a complete fabrication. A lie from the start.

> BTW - If you'll review my posts, you will find that I have not been advocating for helmet laws
> (assuming that's what you fear most).

Then why have you posted citations to studies you haven't read? What was the motivation to do that?

Look, most pro-helmet studies have serious errors and in some cases outright lies built into them.
For instance the Henderson 'study' was nothing more than report on other 'studies' and then he used
the most questionable parts of the other studies to reach a positive conclusion. And he didn't mind
doing little things like claiming that there'd never been a study that didn't show helmets
improving one's chances. That was a lie and he knew it. But he was being paid by the Australian
government to show that they had good reasons to pass a helmet law. So he pulled little tricks like
saying that bicycle head injury death had dropped by 20% without mentioning that bicycle use had
dropped 30% and the like.

If you want to wear a helmet there is nothing stopping you. There isn't a person on the globe trying
to pass an 'anti-helmet' law. So explain why people want to pass helmet laws for everyone else? And
to that end there appears to be no end to the subterfuge they are willing to go.

I've been emailed by an emergency room nurse who has worked in his career field for 20 years in a
large busy metropolitan area. He tells me that in that time he has seen TWO head seriously injured
bicyclists. He wrote to me in response to someone claiming that their wife worked in a emergency
room for 18 months and had seen all kinds of them. It seems that were helmets are concerned the
******** just gets deeper and deeper.

 

[Gary German]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm a "helmet nazi" because I think they can reduce injuries and
> deaths, and
> > I cite studies and recommendations from prestigious organizations
> that
> > concur?
>
> Did you read those studies Gary? Or did you find a nice summary and print that because it agreed
> with your feelings? BTW, summaries are often written for the people who funded the study such as
> the summary of the Harborview Institute which mentioned that "85% fewer head injuries" line. If
> you read the study you'd have discovered that they only found 67% fewer head injuries and
> claimed that they THOUGHT that they could massage the math enough to get 85%. In other words
> that number which has been bandied about for the last 20 years is a complete fabrication. A lie
> from the start.

Yes, Tom, I have read through those studies. Have I read every word of them, and attempted to pick
them apart with your obsessive zeal? No. But, I'll certainly take the recommendations of the Centers
for Disease Control, the American College of Surgeons, etc. (plus my own experience and common
sense), over the ravings of a newsgroup nut any day. You might be smarter than all those folks, and
perhaps it's all some sort of vast helmet manufacturing conspiracy...but, I kind of doubt it.

BTW - I have also not read every study that says that cigarette smoking is bad for me either, but I
trust the research that says it is.

>
> > BTW - If you'll review my posts, you will find that I have not been advocating for helmet laws
> > (assuming that's what you fear most).
>
> Then why have you posted citations to studies you haven't read? What was the motivation to
> do that?
>
> Look, most pro-helmet studies have serious errors and in some cases outright lies built into them.
> For instance the Henderson 'study' was nothing more than report on other 'studies' and then he
> used the most questionable parts of the other studies to reach a positive conclusion. And he
> didn't mind doing little things like claiming that there'd never been a study that didn't show
> helmets improving one's chances. That was a lie and he knew it. But he was being paid by the
> Australian government to show that they had good reasons to pass a helmet law. So he pulled little
> tricks like saying that bicycle head injury death had dropped by 20% without mentioning that
> bicycle use had dropped 30% and the like.
>
> If you want to wear a helmet there is nothing stopping you. There isn't a person on the globe
> trying to pass an 'anti-helmet' law. So explain why people want to pass helmet laws for everyone
> else? And to that end there appears to be no end to the subterfuge they are willing to go.
>
> I've been emailed by an emergency room nurse who has worked in his career field for 20 years in a
> large busy metropolitan area. He tells me that in that time he has seen TWO head seriously injured
> bicyclists. He wrote to me in response to someone claiming that their wife worked in a emergency
> room for 18 months and had seen all kinds of them. It seems that were helmets are concerned the
> ******** just gets deeper and deeper.

 

[Spam Hater]

Gary German wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > I'm a "helmet nazi" because I think they can reduce injuries and
>> deaths, and
>> > I cite studies and recommendations from prestigious organizations
>> that
>> > concur?
>>
>> Did you read those studies Gary? Or did you find a nice summary and print that because it agreed
>> with your feelings? BTW, summaries are often written for the people who funded the study such as
>> the summary of the Harborview Institute which mentioned that "85% fewer head injuries" line. If
>> you read the study you'd have discovered that they only found 67% fewer head injuries and
>> claimed that they THOUGHT that they could massage the math enough to get 85%. In other words
>> that number which has been bandied about for the last 20 years is a complete fabrication. A lie
>> from the start.
>
> Yes, Tom, I have read through those studies. Have I read every word of them, and attempted to pick
> them apart with your obsessive zeal? No. But, I'll certainly take the recommendations of the
> Centers for Disease Control, the American College of Surgeons, etc. (plus my own experience and
> common sense), over the ravings of a newsgroup nut any day. You might be smarter than all those
> folks, and perhaps it's all some sort of vast helmet manufacturing conspiracy...but, I kind of
> doubt it.
>
> BTW - I have also not read every study that says that cigarette smoking is bad for me either, but
> I trust the research that says it is.
>
>>
>> > BTW - If you'll review my posts, you will find that I have not been advocating for helmet laws
>> > (assuming that's what you fear most).
>>
>> Then why have you posted citations to studies you haven't read? What was the motivation to
>> do that?
>>
>> Look, most pro-helmet studies have serious errors and in some cases outright lies built into
>> them. For instance the Henderson 'study' was nothing more than report on other 'studies' and then
>> he used the most questionable parts of the other studies to reach a positive conclusion. And he
>> didn't mind doing little things like claiming that there'd never been a study that didn't show
>> helmets improving one's chances. That was a lie and he knew it. But he was being paid by the
>> Australian government to show that they had good reasons to pass a helmet law. So he pulled
>> little tricks like saying that bicycle head injury death had dropped by 20% without mentioning
>> that bicycle use had dropped 30% and the like.
>>
>> If you want to wear a helmet there is nothing stopping you. There isn't a person on the globe
>> trying to pass an 'anti-helmet' law. So explain why people want to pass helmet laws for everyone
>> else? And to that end there appears to be no end to the subterfuge they are willing to go.
>>
>> I've been emailed by an emergency room nurse who has worked in his career field for 20 years in a
>> large busy metropolitan area. He tells me that in that time he has seen TWO head seriously
>> injured bicyclists. He wrote to me in response to someone claiming that their wife worked in a
>> emergency room for 18 months and had seen all kinds of them. It seems that were helmets are
>> concerned the ******** just gets deeper and deeper.
>>
>>
>>

tom is a gay butt-munch. Kill file him and move on with life. You will be happier for it
--

I don't herd cats anymore. All you end up with are scratches and a bunch of ****** off cats.

 

[Tomas Bystrom]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I've been emailed by an emergency room nurse who has worked in his career field for 20 years in a
> large busy metropolitan area. He tells me that in that time he has seen TWO head seriously injured
> bicyclists. He wrote to me in response to someone claiming that their wife worked in a emergency
> room for 18 months and had seen all kinds of them. It seems that were helmets are concerned the
> ******** just gets deeper and deeper.

Hey, you have the massive statistics of _one_ person saying what you like and _one_ saying what you
don't. As you are rapid of pointing out formal faults in the studies you don't like, I'm sure you
understand that this amounts to exactly _no_ evidence for _anything_. There is no way of
(dis)proving either claim. I disagree with your views on helmets, but that doesn't stop me from
listening to both sides - ******** is ******** whoever speaks it (including me...).

/Tomas

--
Caps and foobar are normally not parts of my address.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Tomas Bystrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hey, you have the massive statistics of _one_ person saying what you
like
> and _one_ saying what you don't.

So you think that after 30 years of looking into this I have only one source? Here's a reading
list for you:

http://www.greengas.u-net.com/HelmetsByHillman.html
http://www.greengas.u-net.com/HelmetsByHillman.html#RiskCompensation

And then after you digest that you can go on to the more difficult to find stuff described at

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/research.html

I haven't read all of these papers but I have read a significant number of them.

> As you are rapid of pointing out formal faults in the studies you don't like, I'm sure you
> understand that
this
> amounts to exactly _no_ evidence for _anything_. There is no way of
> (dis)proving either claim. I disagree with your views on helmets, but that doesn't stop me from
> listening to both sides - ******** is ******** whoever speaks it (including me...).

It must be rather painful to look at the number of road fatalities before helmets and the number
after and not find any difference. Another statistic that can't prove anything. But just say helmet
and people are willing to believe that you can fall off of the Empire State Building on your head
and survive if you only that the most expensive Bell helmet you can get.

Andrei Kivilev can't even die and the critics are telling us what an idiot and incompetent **** he
was and that his life would have been

shame at all.

 

[Tomas Bystrom]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Tomas Bystrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Hey, you have the massive statistics of _one_ person saying what you like and _one_ saying what
>> you don't.
>
> So you think that after 30 years of looking into this I have only one source? Here's a reading
> list for you:

Of course I don't think you're that shallow. I was referring to the number of ER nurses you quoted,
and drew some sort of conclusion from, in the post I replied to. Of course there are plenty of
sources both pro and con, and many more ER nurses to ask.

> It must be rather painful to look at the number of road fatalities before helmets and the number
> after and not find any difference. Another statistic that can't prove anything.

Nope, especially as there are an enormous amount of variables (time dependence of the number of
cyclists, how/where do people ride, are motorists more/less aggresive) to take into account. But
that's how statistics works - see some effects that seems to correlate and pretend you have
established a cause-and-effect connection.

> Andrei Kivilev can't even die and the critics are telling us what an idiot and incompetent **** he
> was and that his life would have been

> shame at all.

To this I can agree somewhat. It is totally useless to speculate what a helmet might have done for A
K. He is dead, and it's tragic. However, alongside events like this there's always the debate on how
to prevent it from happening again. As long as those are civilized I don't have a problem with that
- after all, the life in the rest of the world must go on.

/Tomas

--
Caps and foobar are normally not parts of my address.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Tomas Bystrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
Tom
> Kunich wrote:
> > "Tomas Bystrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Hey, you have the massive statistics of _one_ person saying what
you
> >> like and _one_ saying what you don't.
> >
> > So you think that after 30 years of looking into this I have only
one
> > source? Here's a reading list for you:
>
> Of course I don't think you're that shallow. I was referring to the number of ER nurses you
> quoted, and drew some sort of conclusion
from,
> in the post I replied to. Of course there are plenty of sources both
pro
> and con, and many more ER nurses to ask.

Look, Tomas, maybe if I give you some numbers you'll understand my position. There were less than
700 bicycling fatalities last year. Perhaps there were some 400 that died from head injuries but
let's say that it was 500. There is a good ratio between serious injuries and fatalities. It happens
to be about 5:1. So let's say that there were 500 head fatalities and 2500 serious injuries of the
head to bicyclists. OK, now just to be overly fair to these "medical personnel" who tell us about
all of the bicycle injuries - let's double that number to 6000.

There are over 30,000 emergency rooms in the USA.

That implies that once every 30,000/6000 = 5 years an ER will see a serious bicycle head injury
head injury. Now surely there are some emergency rooms that will see a little more and some a
little less, but during this same time they will hundreds and hundreds of head injuries from OTHER
sources. How is it that they can even remember a bicyclist over the hundreds of motorcyclists, auto
accident victims, home fall injuries etc? The way they remember them is that they don't. It's all a
damned lie.

Should I have been surprised that this emergency room nurse reported that my numbers (taken from
various federal sources) are accurate?

> > It must be rather painful to look at the number of road fatalities before helmets and the number
> > after and not find any difference. Another statistic that can't prove anything.
>
> Nope, especially as there are an enormous amount of variables (time dependence of the number of
> cyclists, how/where do people
ride,
> are motorists more/less aggresive) to take into account. But that's
how
> statistics works - see some effects that seems to correlate and
pretend
> you have established a cause-and-effect connection.

In the last 20+ years the only change in the numbers of cyclist fatalities has been reflected by an
almost identical change in pedestrian fatalities. This isn't some "variability". See
http://home.earthlink.net/~tkunich/_images/HelmetStandards2002.htm

> > Andrei Kivilev can't even die and the critics are telling us what
an
> > idiot and incompetent **** he was and that his life would have
been

> > shame at all.
>
> To this I can agree somewhat. It is totally useless to speculate
what a
> helmet might have done for A K. He is dead, and it's tragic.

I have a question Tomas - how much have you studied the helmet subject? I'd warrant almost none at
all. And yet you want to argue about it. Why is that? What is it that would bring a perfectly
normal, sane person to support a plastic hat for protecting his life? What could possibly bring you
to believe that 160+ lbs traveling some 15 or more mph could be safely controlled by 7 ounces of
foamed plastic?

Doesn't anyone have a lick of education, thought or common sense anymore?