Re: Helmets

Quoted message said:

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

Some of you guys are like 'reading' a soap opera in motion.
Keep flaming. It makes for good reading and I am not taking a side.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

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.

I meant posting.

Quoted message said:

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.

Oh, now Frank . . . don't get your knickers in a twist.

Quoted message said:

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

No lie. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. You throw out
that cry of "Are you calling cycling a horribly dangerous activity??"
every time somebody mentions the word helmet.

If you want to say that I'm using hyperbole, then say it. If you want
to say I'm a liar, say it. I'm quite comfortable with my credibility.
I'm even more comfortable that you're just a damned Johnny one-note
blowhard.

Quoted message said:

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.

Ditto. If it's getting rough for you . . . try a helmet ;-)

Chalo said:

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

My first inclination, is to just tell you to [censored]. I am not about
to get involved in a helmet debate. He asked whether or not we wear
them, I wear mine. I have read enough of these stupid arguements about
wearing helmets for other activities, if you use one for riding. In my
opinion your arguement above is just as silly as those ridiculous
bikes that you build.
I can't walk at 20mph, can you?

You can go ahead, debate, insult, or post whatever followup [censored] you
desire. I refuse to reply. I have my opinion, you have yours, the end.
I am not interested in a helmet debate!

Have a nice day!
Jeff

According to Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you want to say that I'm using hyperbole, then say it. If you want
to say I'm a liar, say it. I'm quite comfortable with my credibility.
I'm even more comfortable that you're just a damned Johnny one-note
blowhard.

I don't see how staying on-thread makes him either a one-note or a
blowhard.

Dejanews search Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
group:rec.bicycles.misc author:krygowski 3230
group:rec.bicycles.misc author:krygowski -helmet 1980

---
Lars Lehtonen

Jeff Starr said:

Chalo said:

Jeff Starr wrote:

... He asked whether or not we wear

them, I wear mine. ...
Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. This is probably not the best place for such a survey,
but I wear mine all the time as does everyone I ride with and
practically everyone I see riding. I'm no longer debating either,
because none of the no helmet arguments are enough to sway me. The
vocal proponents of no helmets seem to be a tiny minority from my
perspective.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

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.

I wish I wore mine ..."all the time."

Stepped off into the abyss Sun AM and went head first down the basement
stairs.

I was dressed in full PI kit.

NO helmet!

Oh! am I sore!

HAND

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I don't understand the anti-helmet brigade's obsession with fatality
over injury either. I'd much rather be dead than left with a significant
brain injury.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

catzz66 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.

I wear mine all the time, because it's mandatory here. I'm so used to it
that I sometimes think "Damn, I forgot my helmet!" before noticing that
it's on my head :-)

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

Quoted message said:

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.

Allow me to quote . . . me . . . again:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Here's a link for you, Frank. This might put your "mind" at ease:

http://snipurl.com/f6u2

So quit with your righteous indignation. It's rather pathetic.

You should'a worn a helmet, I tell ya'

On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:29:29 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't understand the anti-helmet brigade's obsession with fatality
over injury either.

Please clarify: who exactly is this anti-helmet brigade? Name names.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Where is the guy who started this all. Peter! where are you?
Told you he was a troll.

Michael Warner said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I didn't write any of this text you quoted.

Quoted message said:

I don't understand the anti-helmet brigade's obsession with fatality
over injury either. I'd much rather be dead than left with a significant
brain injury.

Probably because the number of fatalities is highly correlated with the
number of injuries involving brain trauma, and it's easier to get
statistics on the former.

I'm not sure who you mean by the "anti-helmet" brigade, but none of Frank,
Guy, or myself are anti-helmet, any more than we are "anti-kneepad".

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>
> 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.

Allow me to quote . . . me . . . again:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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.

Here's a link for you, Frank. This might put your "mind" at ease:

http://snipurl.com/f6u2

So quit with your righteous indignation. It's rather pathetic.

I'd be indignant too if somebody accused me of something, and completely
failed to back it up. I have yet to see a single article where Frank makes
this implication.

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

On 27 May 2005 08:46:11 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Where is the guy who started this all. Peter! where are you?
Told you he was a troll.

Heh! :-)

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

On 27 May 2005 10:01:09 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But if we really want to understand the benefits (or lack thereof) we
still need to un-couple the helmet qua helmet from compulsion. By
looking only at the data in studies with compulsion and high compliance
it would seem to be hard to separate the effects.

The problem is, a cycle helmet is a very noticeable intervention - it
is pretty much impossible that one could wear one without being aware
of it.

Spontaneous changes from wearing to non-wearing are also not
particularly likely, and wearers are unlikely to spontaneously abandon
wearing.

So if you want to see what happens to a group of cyclists when their
helmet wearing behaviour changes, studying jurisdictions with
compulsion is about the only way of doing it. You can track
populations with slower moving trends, but in those cases it is going
to be harder to disaggregate other coincident effects.

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 27 May 2005 10:01:09 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But if we really want to understand the benefits (or lack thereof) we
still need to un-couple the helmet qua helmet from compulsion. By
looking only at the data in studies with compulsion and high compliance
it would seem to be hard to separate the effects.

The problem is, a cycle helmet is a very noticeable intervention - it
is pretty much impossible that one could wear one without being aware
of it.

Spontaneous changes from wearing to non-wearing are also not
particularly likely, and wearers are unlikely to spontaneously abandon
wearing.

So if you want to see what happens to a group of cyclists when their
helmet wearing behaviour changes, studying jurisdictions with
compulsion is about the only way of doing it. You can track
populations with slower moving trends, but in those cases it is going
to be harder to disaggregate other coincident effects.

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

Didn't say it would be easy.
But it seems to me that the way to go would be to look at a non
compulsory jurisdiction and then you have populations of helmet
wearerers and non weareres. Then you need to collect a lot of data on
various personality and riding traits so that you can "match" subgroups
from each population that are the same or at least very similar) on the
other traits and then look at injuries betwen the matched groups
between wearers and non wearers.(I've already agreed that there are
probably differences between wearers and non weariers; but with a large
enough study population you should still be able to get these matched
sub groups as the differences are not 100% on every variable)
Lacking something along this line this debate will go on with neither
side being able "prove" much of anything to the other.

catzz66 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.

I've given them up. They are too dangerous. Twice, my helmet has
caused me to almost crash (both times in dangerous situations). I would
probably wear one if I had to but otherwise I feel safer without one.

And, of course, there is no believable evidence they are of any use in
a serious accident.

On 27 May 2005 11:05:16 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But it seems to me that the way to go would be to look at a non
compulsory jurisdiction and then you have populations of helmet
wearerers and non weareres. Then you need to collect a lot of data on
various personality and riding traits so that you can "match" subgroups
from each population that are the same or at least very similar) on the
other traits and then look at injuries betwen the matched groups
between wearers and non wearers.

The problem with that is that it's going to be hard to find meaningful
numbers of the sort of person who is naturally cautious but doesn't
wear a helmet, or the sort of person who is risk-tolerant but does.

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:

Quoted message said:

The problem with that is that it's going to be hard to find meaningful
numbers of the sort of person who is naturally cautious but doesn't
wear a helmet, or the sort of person who is risk-tolerant but does.

Perhaps, but good research is seldom easy.
And perhaps your issue isn't quite as hard as you expect. For example,
I am a rock climber who does back country climbing. So, most folks
would say I was pretty risk tolerant. But I also wear a helmet (cycling
and climbing). So do many of the folks I know. I also know many
(climbers not cyclists) who don't.

Interestingly this exact argument also pervades climibng discussions.
And the problems in convincing anyone of a different persuasion are
difficult as there is little in the way of really convincing research
and there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence on both sides to prove
whatever you want.

John_Kane said:

catzz66 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.

I've given them up. They are too dangerous. Twice, my helmet has
caused me to almost crash (both times in dangerous situations). I would
probably wear one if I had to but otherwise I feel safer without one.

And, of course, there is no believable evidence they are of any use in
a serious accident.

I won't grant you the "of course" since I recently had an accident and
felt that the helment saved me some serious injury. The non wearers
will argue that I might have been just as well off without a helmet, but
it was my accident, my head that hit the pavement and I believe it
helped me avoid a more serious injury.