Re: Helmets

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>Frank provides stats with context.

Wasn't going to single him out, but he also implies that people who
aren't *actively defending against* helmet legislation (even if
they've expressed no support *for* the notion) are declaring cycling
to be dangerous.

I think that's dirty pool.

Whoa! Speaking of dirty pool!

Read on. I feel pretty justified.

Quoted message said:

Do I think that promoting helmets implies cycling is dangerous? Yes,
definitely - because people _never_ propose safety equipment except to
avert danger. (Reread Benjamin Lewis's "meteorite helmet for lying in
bed" post to see how silly anything else would be.)

Again, read on. I still feel justified.

Quoted message said:

But where have I said "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous"? Hell, most people - including most
cyclists - aren't even aware this is an issue!

Since I _know_ you're not going to be able to provide a citation, I'd
appreciate a retraction.

Well, you're going to quibble because -- since I wasn't *quoting*, I
don't have a quote, but . . .

A simple Google search produces: http://snipurl.com/f5ik , where you
say (and I quote)

You're badly confused. You've given many quotes where I pointed out
that cycling is not very risky, or disputed others' statements that
cycling _is_ dangerous.

But would you re-read the above? What was I asking for?

You had claimed that I said "anyone who doesn't defend against
legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous."

I never said that. None of your quotes of me said that. None ever
will.

FWIW, I'll leave all the quotes intact, below my signature. Despite
your vague objections, they are all correct, I'll stand by them, and I
don't want anyone to think I'm hiding anything.

But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do I
say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring cycling
to be dangerous."

If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

- Frank Krygowski

==========================================================================

Quoted message said:

- "the data shows two things:
1) Cycling is NOT dangerous enough to require special protective
equipment"

- "don't make cycling seem like a horror story waiting to happen!"

- "Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
is"

- "There are legions of people working as hard as they can to make
others believe bicycling is inherently dangerous."

- "People do NOT routinely die in 5 mph bike crashes either! Note
how easily you assume cycling is terribly dangerous!"

- "Wearing a helmet isn't necessarily restricting cycling (although
it may provide ammunition for those who wish to do so)."

- "Furthermore, the idea that cycling is very dangerous doesn't
appear to be true! The risk of fatality per hour is no greater than
that for motoring" [1]

- it's just not as dangerous as people are made to believe! [2]

- "Do you have data on the risk of serious head injury per hour for,
say, bicycling, motoring and walking near traffic? I ask because such
data is quite hard to find - and because the only data I've been able
to find shows cycling is NOT unusually dangerous regarding such
injuries." [3]

- Once there was money to be made by selling protective headgear, the
publicity started, claiming that bicycling is actually quite
dangerous, and that protective equipment is necessary

- "So if you want to scare people by saying their bike is more
dangerous than their sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know
it's safer than their basketball!" [4]

- "I fight hard against the idea that ordinary cycling is so
dangerous that one should never ride without a helmet" [5]

- "Face it, you too believe cycling is very dangerous. Fine way to
promote the activity!" [6]

- "I object to making people think that cycling is so dangerous that
they shouldn't ride without a helmet"

The bottom line here is that you don't get your retraction. I'm
pretty sure I could find dozens and dozens of similar quotes.

I think this approach is doing you a disservice. When somebody
suggests the notion of helmet use, you just drag out your old, tired
D-word. It's inflammatory and unproductive. I think it needs to be
retired in favor of a new approach (e.g., Note #4 below).

Neil

-----------------------
[1] And here, yet again, is the imposition of one's personal beliefs
about the definition of the word "dangerous:" Risk of fatality.

Let's just use Webster's for grins: Dangerous - "able or likely to
inflict injury, pain, harm, or loss."

So you're definition is somewhere between loaded and wrong. At the
*very least*, you're trying to force *everybody* to play on your home
court: your definition of dangerous.

[2] How dangerous *do* people believe it to be, and how extreme *are*
the measures that they are discussing in this forum for mitigating
this risk?

[3] When drawn out, you get a bit more accurate, IMHO. Not
"unusually" dangerous. That's quite a bit different, and
substantively misleading to somebody considering the helmet equation
for the first time. At least you're starting to imply *relative*
danger here (though I'm sure you're still talking fatality).

[4] "Scare" is a wonderful term. Perhaps the better option for *all*
would be to inform people of the statistical risks of injury and death
for the respective pastimes--along with the variables that they might
evaluate (training, traffic, road conditions, tolerance for risk,
etc.) that might influence *their* risk, then letting them make an
informed decision.

[5] Are people really saying that? Really??

[6] This gem is in response to "...the common sense reality that some
protection is better than none--" a statement that *seems to be*
supported by most available research, incidentally.

Neil Brooks said:

Understood, but the helmet is basically the only "first step" safety
measure in a cyclist's wardrobe (gloves? Eh, only kinda'😉. It's
probably a fairly big payoff vis-a-vis cost:benefit (as separate from
risk:reward), the same way that a seatbelt is.

I understand you're concentrating on the "wardrobe" of safety - (more
on that later) - but the fact is, in the US the bike helmet is
considered THE "first step" in bike safety.

Pardon me for returning to that recent article in my paper. It
originated from a Florida paper, BTW, so it's probably gotten fairly
wide circulation.

It's talking about a family riding bikes. And it paints a picture of
danger for those riding without helmets. It gives scary-sounding
statistics. The author wants people to be safer, no doubt.

But what else does it say about bike safety? Nothing. Zero. Not a
bit! Nothing about which side of the road to ride, nothing about stop
signs, potholes, gravel, adequate brakes, headlights at night...
nothing in over 600 words, except "Always wear a helmet."

Contrast with todays article, same paper, same length, about "ATV
Safety: Is Your Child Ready?"

Yes, the first safety tip it gives is "... always wear a helmet..." BUT
it follows with 23 other detailed safety tips about kids on ATVs! It
discusses depth perception, endurance, judgement, attention span,
rules, peer pressure, and many other matters.

This, folks, illustrates the difference between valuable information
and American "bike safety." In America, "bike safety" has been reduced
to two points: 1) Bicycling is dangerous!!!! 2) Always wear a
helmet!!!!

In other words, it starts with fear, and it ends with the wardrobe.

- Frank Krygowski

25 May 2005 21:53:42 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

This, folks, illustrates the difference between valuable information
and American "bike safety." In America, "bike safety" has been reduced
to two points: 1) Bicycling is dangerous!!!! 2) Always wear a
helmet!!!!

In other words, it starts with fear, and it ends with the wardrobe.

I'm gonna puke again.
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "BL" == Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]> writes:

BL> To take a ridiculously extreme example, if I published a paper
BL> that conclusively proved that wearing a helmet in bed could
BL> prevent 100% of nighttime head injuries due to falling airplane
BL> engines, people would rightly think I was a loon if I then
BL> claimed that this made it abundantly clear that wearing a helmet
BL> in bed was a good idea.

In bed you're supposed to put the helmet on the *other* head. The
safety benefits of this have been much more conclusively researched.

--
Alex

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:51:38 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

I mean, the promotion and use of bicycle helmets.

Quoted message said:

I'm not even advocating that. I just think that people who only
*mean* to deter legislation (or religious attachment to a helmet)
sometimes push too far and get people wondering why they would ever
wear one at all.

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder. I rode my bike for years
before I ever heard of helmets, even had a few crashes, and I am still
alive.

Quoted message said:

There are some reasons . . . why some people . . . should wear helmets
. . . some of the time. Whether they choose to, IMHO, should be up to
them.

No, that's not right. The truth is that wearing a helmet, and not
wearing a helmet, are both reasonable choices.

Quoted message said:

But let's give them the full facts....

I'm all for that. Now you go out and look at the stuff your tax
dollars are paying for. See how much of the "full facts" is in there.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Benjamin Lewis said:

To take a ridiculously extreme example, if I published a paper that
conclusively proved that wearing a helmet in bed could prevent 100% of
nighttime head injuries due to falling airplane engines, people would
rightly think I was a loon if I then claimed that this made it abundantly
clear that wearing a helmet in bed was a good idea.

Donnie Darko?

On 25 May 2005 15:49:24 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In theory, if more high-mileage cyclists wore helmets and all the
low-mileage cyclists stopped, you'd expect that to result in much
bigger drops in injury rates, as experienced cyclists have lower
injury rates to start with. But that's speculative.

Quoted message said:

That may be true for a part of the experience spectrum but certainly
not for all of it. I'd guess that the highest skilled cyclists-racers-
also have the highest accident rates.

Only when racing. On training rides, aside from the occasional victim
of the blind clueless cager, racers have a very good safety record
(they have excellent bike handling skills). The injuries come in the
big wrecks in mass-start races. There is some evidence these are
getting worse.

Quoted message said:

And at other points of the spectrum like fast recreational riders I
also imagine that the rate of crashes and injuries is higher than for
those with a bit less experience but also a bit less competitive zeal.

I know of no evidence to support that.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:45:04 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

California passed a helmet law for motorcycles (I was bummed) and bike
sales are still incredible.

False example. Frank's already posted about how the motorcyclist
safety record in no-law states is better than that for law states; the
same figures which "prove" that motorcycle helmets work also "prove"
that they prevent excess blood alcohol :-)

http://www.forbes.com/fyi/99/0503/041.htm

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >Frank provides stats with context.
>
> Wasn't going to single him out, but he also implies that people who
> aren't *actively defending against* helmet legislation (even if
> they've expressed no support *for* the notion) are declaring cycling
> to be dangerous.
>
> I think that's dirty pool.

Whoa! Speaking of dirty pool!

Read on. I feel pretty justified.

Quoted message said:

Do I think that promoting helmets implies cycling is dangerous? Yes,
definitely - because people _never_ propose safety equipment except to
avert danger. (Reread Benjamin Lewis's "meteorite helmet for lying in
bed" post to see how silly anything else would be.)

Again, read on. I still feel justified.

Quoted message said:

But where have I said "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous"? Hell, most people - including most
cyclists - aren't even aware this is an issue!

Since I _know_ you're not going to be able to provide a citation, I'd
appreciate a retraction.

Well, you're going to quibble because -- since I wasn't *quoting*, I
don't have a quote, but . . .

A simple Google search produces: http://snipurl.com/f5ik , where you
say (and I quote)

You're badly confused. You've given many quotes where I pointed out
that cycling is not very risky, or disputed others' statements that
cycling _is_ dangerous.

But would you re-read the above? What was I asking for?

You had claimed that I said "anyone who doesn't defend against
legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous."

I never said that. None of your quotes of me said that. None ever
will.

FWIW, I'll leave all the quotes intact, below my signature. Despite
your vague objections, they are all correct, I'll stand by them, and I
don't want anyone to think I'm hiding anything.

But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do I
say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring cycling
to be dangerous."

If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
responsive e-mail.

You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
(inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.

To quote myself here . . .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] And here, yet again, is the imposition of one's personal beliefs
about the definition of the word "dangerous:" Risk of fatality.

Let's just use Webster's for grins: Dangerous - "able or likely to
inflict injury, pain, harm, or loss."

So you're definition is somewhere between loaded and wrong. At the
*very least*, you're trying to force *everybody* to play on your home
court: your definition of dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[4] "Scare" is a wonderful term. Perhaps the better option for *all*
would be to inform people of the statistical risks of injury and death
for the respective pastimes--along with the variables that they might
evaluate (training, traffic, road conditions, tolerance for risk,
etc.) that might influence *their* risk, then letting them make an
informed decision.

If you "demand satisfaction" and wish to throw down the gauntlet, just
let me know....

Quoted message said:

==========================================================================

Quoted message said:

- "the data shows two things:
1) Cycling is NOT dangerous enough to require special protective
equipment"

- "don't make cycling seem like a horror story waiting to happen!"

- "Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
is"

- "There are legions of people working as hard as they can to make
others believe bicycling is inherently dangerous."

- "People do NOT routinely die in 5 mph bike crashes either! Note
how easily you assume cycling is terribly dangerous!"

- "Wearing a helmet isn't necessarily restricting cycling (although
it may provide ammunition for those who wish to do so)."

- "Furthermore, the idea that cycling is very dangerous doesn't
appear to be true! The risk of fatality per hour is no greater than
that for motoring" [1]

- it's just not as dangerous as people are made to believe! [2]

- "Do you have data on the risk of serious head injury per hour for,
say, bicycling, motoring and walking near traffic? I ask because such
data is quite hard to find - and because the only data I've been able
to find shows cycling is NOT unusually dangerous regarding such
injuries." [3]

- Once there was money to be made by selling protective headgear, the
publicity started, claiming that bicycling is actually quite
dangerous, and that protective equipment is necessary

- "So if you want to scare people by saying their bike is more
dangerous than their sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know
it's safer than their basketball!" [4]

- "I fight hard against the idea that ordinary cycling is so
dangerous that one should never ride without a helmet" [5]

- "Face it, you too believe cycling is very dangerous. Fine way to
promote the activity!" [6]

- "I object to making people think that cycling is so dangerous that
they shouldn't ride without a helmet"

The bottom line here is that you don't get your retraction. I'm
pretty sure I could find dozens and dozens of similar quotes.

I think this approach is doing you a disservice. When somebody
suggests the notion of helmet use, you just drag out your old, tired
D-word. It's inflammatory and unproductive. I think it needs to be
retired in favor of a new approach (e.g., Note #4 below).

Neil

-----------------------
[1] And here, yet again, is the imposition of one's personal beliefs
about the definition of the word "dangerous:" Risk of fatality.

Let's just use Webster's for grins: Dangerous - "able or likely to
inflict injury, pain, harm, or loss."

So you're definition is somewhere between loaded and wrong. At the
*very least*, you're trying to force *everybody* to play on your home
court: your definition of dangerous.

[2] How dangerous *do* people believe it to be, and how extreme *are*
the measures that they are discussing in this forum for mitigating
this risk?

[3] When drawn out, you get a bit more accurate, IMHO. Not
"unusually" dangerous. That's quite a bit different, and
substantively misleading to somebody considering the helmet equation
for the first time. At least you're starting to imply *relative*
danger here (though I'm sure you're still talking fatality).

[4] "Scare" is a wonderful term. Perhaps the better option for *all*
would be to inform people of the statistical risks of injury and death
for the respective pastimes--along with the variables that they might
evaluate (training, traffic, road conditions, tolerance for risk,
etc.) that might influence *their* risk, then letting them make an
informed decision.

[5] Are people really saying that? Really??

[6] This gem is in response to "...the common sense reality that some
protection is better than none--" a statement that *seems to be*
supported by most available research, incidentally.

Jim Smith said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

To take a ridiculously extreme example, if I published a paper that
conclusively proved that wearing a helmet in bed could prevent 100% of
nighttime head injuries due to falling airplane engines, people would
rightly think I was a loon if I then claimed that this made it
abundantly clear that wearing a helmet in bed was a good idea.

Donnie Darko?

That was probably in the back of my mind somewhere when I thought of this
example.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do I
say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring cycling
to be dangerous."

If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
responsive e-mail.

You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
(inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.

Could you perhaps find an article where Frank does this?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do I
say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring cycling
to be dangerous."

If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
responsive e-mail.

You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
(inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.

Could you perhaps find an article where Frank does this?

Follow the link that I provided. Nearly every time you see Frank use
the term "dangerous" in conjunction with a study or a statistic, that
study or statistic concerns cycling *fatalities or traumatic brain
injury*.

Again, look at all of Frank's posts that use the term "dangerous."

Then look at the *definition* of the word [1]

So . . . *by definition*, cycling is dangerous. Period. It just is.
Now the *real* question becomes: *how* dangerous is it. And that's
where it's all about an individual's circumstances and their tolerance
for risk.

Quotes by Frank like (yes, Frank, I'm quoting now. Note the quotation
marks),

- "People now assume bicycling is hideously dangerous" are
inflammatory, ridiculous, unfounded, and counter-productive.

- "and when the safety missionaries started portraying cycling as a
very dangerous source of serious head injuries" Frank, can you
provide a source for that quote?

- "pre-law publicity by MHL advocates was pretty gruesome. It was
aimed at convincing people that cycling is terribly, terribly
dangerous" Again, can you provide the cite for that?

- " Specifically, you seem to be thinking that cycling is dangerous."

- "As I've mentioned in another post, cycling is safer per hour than
riding in cars. See
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepa­ges/health/risks.htm, for
example." Again, emphasis on cycling *deaths*. That's just not the
definition of "dangerous."

- "How dangerous is cycling, really? It's not dangerous at all. The
risk of serious head injury is about the same as riding in a car."
Again, defining "dangerous" in your own *inaccurate* way.

- and here we find a little gem: "I don't think of cycling as being
very dangerous. Except for inconsequential injuries."
Inconsequential injuries??? This is why you summarily dismiss the
tales of those who say they went down, hit and cracked their helmet,
but rode home. That's still what I want to do: ride home. I don't
want a scalp laceration. If my little Bell jobbie will prevent that
in a fall, that's plenty good enough for me. YMMV.

- "But to let you know where I come from on this: since I've got this
admittedly irrational love of cycling, I'm quick to take exception to
statements that make it sound dangerous and evil" There it is again:
somebody thinks there's some logic to helmet, Frank accuses them of
disparaging the sport in the most deplorable way. This is [censored], Frank
.. . . and you should stop doing it.

- "Or do you accept the common American fallacy that it's just
bicycling that causes brain injuries? Do you really believe that
bicycling, and only bicycling, is so fearsomely dangerous that a
helmet is necessary?" Back to the red herring issue of "other things
are dangerous, too." Also back to defining dangerous as 'inflicting
brain injuries.' Specious and offensive . . . and you should stop.

- "And by the same token, if you want to wear a helmet, do so.
Please don't try to convince people that helmetless cycling is
horrendously dangerous." Where is/was anybody doing that????

- "or a front page article in a national magazine) saying that
bicycling is hideously dangerous, . . ." Citation, please? Are you
quoting here (can't imagine)?

- "Even if I'm only "average" in my cycling safety (despite my
obedience to traffic laws, my skill on the bike, my experience, etc.)
then I reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike in something over
6000 years. It's hard to call that "dangerous"! There it is again:
"dangerous" means lethality . . . not potential to harm or injure.
That's just wrong . . . and you should stop.

- So why only cycling? Why perpetuate the myth that bicycling is
uniquely dangerous?" Who was??

- When bicyclists buy into the myth of extreme danger (so dangerous
that protective headgear is a must!) it does us no good. It drives
people away from cycling and leads to repressive laws." That's just
Frank the drama-queen spewing. By definition, cycling is dangerous.
How dangerous depends on myriad factors for each individual. What
chances they're willing to take, or how much "insurance" they're
willing to buy (eg, a helmet) is an individual choice.

- "The danger level is low enough that such protection really isn't
necessary, and needn't be promoted." Defining "danger" as death
again, I assume?? Making decisions for others as to the
appropriateness of a helmet for them, are we? Does that make you
different from an MHL advocate?? All *they're* doing is trying to
make that decision for you. How are you different when you spew this
rhetoric?

- "Ordinary on-road cycling, if done with reasonable care and skill,
is not dangerous enough to worry about." ibid

- "Brilliant theories. Now you need to explain why there are so many
more brain injuries from other activities besides bicycling - like
falls in the home. You need to explain why estimates of serious brain
injuries per hour make bicycling look no more dangerous than
motoring." So, again, danger is defined as "capable of producing a
traumatic brain injury?" Or is it fatalities??

- "But on the other hand, it seems that even _racing_
bicycles is not particularly dangerous. So far, the list of
fatalities from over 100 years of cycle racing seems to be tiny
indeed" Ok, so "dangerous" means deadly. But what about Webster's??

- "And contrary to the hysteria, biking is not a particularly
dangerous activity. Deaths due to biking are rare. Percentage deaths
due to head injury are no different in bike accidents than in car
accidents or pedestrian accidents. Risk of death per hour activity
are roughly the same in a car or walking across a street as on a bike.
(I know I'm talking deaths vs injuries now - but MHL promotors have
counted cut ears as head injuries. I prefer statistics with clear
ground rules.)"

Frank, talking death, or traumatic brain injury, is *all* you do . . .
but that's not the definition of dangerous.

I can cite your BS on this score *all* *day* *long*. You've left an
endless trail of 'dangerous' bread crumbs.

You should lose the D word from your repertroire or start using it
appropriately. Otherwise, you're just the biggest zealot/ideologue on
this newsgroup. Again, not a very flattering role. I can't imagine
why you'd want to play it....

------------------------------------------------
[1] Able to cause injury, pain, or harm.

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do
> I say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring
> cycling to be dangerous."
>
> If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
responsive e-mail.

You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
(inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.

Could you perhaps find an article where Frank does this?

Follow the link that I provided. Nearly every time you see Frank use
the term "dangerous" in conjunction with a study or a statistic, that
study or statistic concerns cycling *fatalities or traumatic brain
injury*.

Let me be more clear. Could you perhaps find an article where Frank
accuses someone, just because they think a helmet has some merit, at some
times, of implying that cycling is a dangerous activity?

Quoted message said:

Again, look at all of Frank's posts that use the term "dangerous."

Then look at the *definition* of the word [1]

So . . . *by definition*, cycling is dangerous. Period. It just is.

[1] Able to cause injury, pain, or harm.

This is not a remotely reasonable definition of "dangerous". A better
definition is more along the lines of "likely to cause moderate or serious
injury, pain, or harm".

*Every* activity is dangerous by your definition, and nobody means this
when they say something like "gee, isn't that dangerous?"

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks wrote:

> [email hidden] wrote:
>> But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below do
>> I say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring
>> cycling to be dangerous."
>>
>> If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.
>
> No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
> exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
> responsive e-mail.
>
> You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
> accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
> for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
> (inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.

Could you perhaps find an article where Frank does this?

Follow the link that I provided. Nearly every time you see Frank use
the term "dangerous" in conjunction with a study or a statistic, that
study or statistic concerns cycling *fatalities or traumatic brain
injury*.

Let me be more clear. Could you perhaps find an article where Frank
accuses someone, just because they think a helmet has some merit, at some
times, of implying that cycling is a dangerous activity?

Been there, done that. Read, or re-read, that last post.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, look at all of Frank's posts that use the term "dangerous."

Then look at the *definition* of the word [1]

So . . . *by definition*, cycling is dangerous. Period. It just is.

[1] Able to cause injury, pain, or harm.

This is not a remotely reasonable definition of "dangerous".

Take it up with Webster's. That *is* the definition of dangerous. If
you want to use it in some other way, it would be preferable to
clarify your intended meaning. Assuming that everybody is thinking
brain damage or death is arrogant and dogmatic.

Quoted message said:

A better
definition is more along the lines of "likely to cause moderate or serious
injury, pain, or harm".

You have your definition, Frank has his. Webster's has theirs.
Dictating to *everybody* what their view of "dangerous" should be
(setting the bar at TBI and fatalities) is pretty dogmatic, no?

Remember: I don't really want to get hurt at all. This would include
a head lac (which may or may not fit your definition) or contusion, if
I can help it. I'm a wuss. Did I mention that already?

You *really* think I'm unique in that position? You think parents are
*only* worried about death or TBI for their kids?? WOW!

If you (any you) are gonna' use a bar which is *that* high, you should
disclose it *every* time you launch the D-word.

Quoted message said:

*Every* activity is dangerous by your definition,

Many activities have some risk of injury, pain, or harm associated
with them, that's true. Many people just seek to understand those
risks, and to ameliorate them to an acceptable level via acceptable
means and costs. Saying that something like bicycling is not
dangerous because it probably won't kill you is *not* giving somebody
accurate, unbiased information . . . *unless that's the question that
they asked* . . . and it really never seems to be.

Quoted message said:

and nobody means this
when they say something like "gee, isn't that dangerous?"

*Nobody* means to say, "Could I get hurt?" ???

There are 6 billion people on this Earth. You've just established
*every single person's* intention when they evaluate whether or not an
activity is "dangerous?"

More specious assumptions.

You and Frank have fun now. I'm gonna' go ride . . . and, yup . . .
I'll be wearing a helmet. YMMV ;-)

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> But you have NOT produced the evidence you claimed. Nowhere below
>>> do I say "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is declaring
>>> cycling to be dangerous."
>>>
>>> If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.
>>
>> No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
>> exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
>> responsive e-mail.
>>
>> You are wildly guilty of just the thing I was implying you are:
>> accusing anybody who thinks a helmet has some merit, at some times,
>> for some people, of calling cycling a 'dangerous' activity while you
>> (inaccurately) use the word 'dangerous' to describe fatalities alone.
>
> Could you perhaps find an article where Frank does this?

Follow the link that I provided. Nearly every time you see Frank use
the term "dangerous" in conjunction with a study or a statistic, that
study or statistic concerns cycling *fatalities or traumatic brain
injury*.

Let me be more clear. Could you perhaps find an article where Frank
accuses someone, just because they think a helmet has some merit, at
some times, of implying that cycling is a dangerous activity?

Been there, done that. Read, or re-read, that last post.

I have. I agree with all those quotes Frank made.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] Able to cause injury, pain, or harm.

This is not a remotely reasonable definition of "dangerous".

Take it up with Webster's. That *is* the definition of dangerous. If
you want to use it in some other way, it would be preferable to
clarify your intended meaning. Assuming that everybody is thinking
brain damage or death is arrogant and dogmatic.

Are you seriously maintaining that if I assert that most people don't
consider sleeping in their bed at night to be dangerous, I'm being
dogmatic? Because by this definition, sleeping is indeed dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Remember: I don't really want to get hurt at all. This would include
a head lac (which may or may not fit your definition) or contusion, if
I can help it. I'm a wuss. Did I mention that already?

What about a scraped elbow or knee?

Quoted message said:

You *really* think I'm unique in that position? You think parents are
*only* worried about death or TBI for their kids?? WOW!

Of course not, but I never said that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*Every* activity is dangerous by your definition,

Many activities have some risk of injury, pain, or harm associated
with them, that's true.

Not many, *every single one*.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and nobody means this
when they say something like "gee, isn't that dangerous?"

*Nobody* means to say, "Could I get hurt?" ???

No, in almost every case they mean to say "are my chances of getting hurt
significantly higher than in other activities I consider to be safe?",
whether they realize it or not.

I'd be surprised if you could find even one person who would call sleeping
"dangerous".

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

It's not going to change my opinion(*) at all, but I would be curious
who among us wears helmets all the time, some of the time or not at all.

* Helmets are a reasonable precaution to take when biking, even though
they might not prevent all possible injuries.

catzz said:

It's not going to change my opinion(*) at all,

Really? I might, if presented with compelling evidence.

Quoted message said:

but I would be curious who among us wears helmets all the time, some of
the time or not at all.

I sometimes wear one.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:04:46 -0500, catzz66 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's not going to change my opinion(*) at all, but I would be curious
who among us wears helmets all the time, some of the time or not at all.

* Helmets are a reasonable precaution to take when biking, even though
they might not prevent all possible injuries.

Hi, I always wear mine. Except for a ride around the block, to check
an adjustment.

I don't believe that a bike helmet makes me invincible, but it will
save me a possible bump, scrape, or something of that nature. I prefer
not to crack my egg.

And I find that a good helmet does not interfere with my comfort at
all. I use a Giro Eclipse most of the time and will be using a Giro
Pnuemo in warmer weather. The Eclipse is a little bit larger, so it
has room for a balaclava, or headband.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Jeff Starr said:

Hi, I always wear mine. Except for a ride around the block, to check
an adjustment.

I don't believe that a bike helmet makes me invincible, but it will
save me a possible bump, scrape, or something of that nature. I prefer
not to crack my egg.

If that's the way you really feel about it, you should also wear it
when you're _not_ on the bike. It's not as if head injuries don't
happen to pedestrians or people in their own homes and workplaces. To
say nothing of the tens of thousands of people every year who die in
their cars from head injuries.

If you think you are in significantly more risk of head injury when you
are riding around than when you are walking around in the same area,
I'd like to know on what basis you believe that. And if you think you
are at more risk of serious head injury while on your bike than when in
your car, you are simply wrong.

I'll never wear a helmet on my bicycle except in jest. But I have much
less problem with helmets in principle than I do with an egregious
double standard that has the effect of marginalizing cycling.

Chalo Colina

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

If you have any honesty, you'll give that retraction now.

No, I won't, Frank. I wasn't quoting you. I was paraphrasing and
exaggerating your position for effect. I told you that in my
responsive e-mail.

First, I got no e-mail from you AFAIK, and I want no e-mail from you.
Discuss this issue here, for all to see.

Second, and more importantly, it appears you lied. It's a little late
to masquerade it as "paraphrasing and exaggerating."

Quoted message said:

If you "demand satisfaction" and wish to throw down the gauntlet, just
let me know....

No need. Everyone's seen what you've done. Thanks.

- Frank Krygowski