The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



B

Bill Shatzer

Guest
Brent P wrote:

-snip-

>>Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their
>>last moments on earth.


> And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet
> is well, just a piece of styrofoam.


A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam.

The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy
things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and
abrasion[2]. I suppose it also allows the head to slide along the
pavement rather than being jerked to an abrupt stop and twisted sideways
which might occur if the smooth outer shell wasn't there.

But the foam inner liner is what absorbs the most of the energy and what
provides almost all of the head protection in a typical accident.

[1] Though pointy objects are seldom are a problem in real world
accidents - as opposed to in testing laboratories.

[2] It also provides a clean, smooth, hard surface on which to paint
flames and dragons and other designs if you are into such things.



Peace and justice,
 
On Aug 23, 7:52 pm, Bill Shatzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >>Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their
> >>last moments on earth.

> > And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet
> > is well, just a piece of styrofoam.

>
> A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam.
>
> The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy
> things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and
> abrasion[2].


The hard shell also distributes impact forces over a much wider area
of the styrofoam. And it prevents the common failure mode of bike
helmets, where the "microshell" is insufficiently strong to keep the
helmet in one piece. (A shattered helmet is scant, if any,
protection.)

> I suppose it also allows the head to slide along the
> pavement rather than being jerked to an abrupt stop and twisted sideways
> which might occur if the smooth outer shell wasn't there.


Absolutely. And that very mechanism - the jerking, twisting
rotational acceleration when the soft foam and thin microshell grip
pavement - may be important. It is one of the causes proposed to
partially explain the observed ineffectiveness of bike helmets.

- Frank Krygowski
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> A motorcycle helmet is basically just a piece of styrofoam.
>
> The hard shell is just there to prevent penetration by sharp or pointy
> things[1] and to protect the inner foam against day to day damage and
> abrasion[2].


Nice down play of them. They are worlds more protective than thin
packaging blow mold plastic and a hunk of styrofoam and you very well
know it.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
>
> Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years.


Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever?
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road,
>> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to
>> pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable.

>
>Don't be an ignoramus. Only places with discriminatory and bastardized
>laws make up such nonsense, so don't parrot them.


The laws are discriminatory because there's a valid distinction to be
made.
>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left.


The left lane is for traffic coming the other way.

>That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't
>do that, don't drive.


Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The
only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break
the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are
worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, and
because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but
refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road,
>> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to
>> pass.

>
>What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the
>limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them,
>yet you don't seem to have a problem with this.


Often when that's expected to be the case, a climbing lane is
provided. Truckers who don't use it are assholes like line-taking
bicyclists (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't
provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make
their trucks narrow enough to pass.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?


Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs that
the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.

The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although
with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health and
lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some measurable
benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any convincing
evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said helmet is still a
net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost due to its bicycling
members regardless of their hat wearing status.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are
> worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick,


Senior citizens must drive faster in your parts.

> and
> because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but
> refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes.


If I am taking the lane there is damn good reason for it. (usually
because I am keeping up with the vehicle in front of me or to my left)
 
On Aug 23, 1:10 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a
> > helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent
> > only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who
> > don't do numbers.

>
> > Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of
> > bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being
> > cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back.

>
> > Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities
> > per hour exposure for each of those groups.

>
> > Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US
> > for each of those groups.

>
> > Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain
> > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall"
> > is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or
> > many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage.

>
> That's a perfect example of carrying an argument to an absurd extreme
> and I'm sure you know it. If we based the decision to use safety
> equiment solely on whether most users would suffer injury in their
> absence we would have very few pieces of saffety equipment. The kind
> and severity of injury clearly is the deciding criteria in prescribing
> safety equipment. For example the number of children injured by
> burning clothing has always been quite small when compared to the
> total population of children. And yet when it occurs the
> conseqnences are tragic, sometimes life threatening and usually
> permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
> children.


You are absolutely wrong on several points.

First, safety gear are not prescribed based only on the potential
"kind and severity of injury," as you claim. For example, the
consequences of an airliner crash would include death, or
dismemberment, or mutilating burns, or (of course) debilitating brain
injury. But airline passengers are not even given helmets, let alone
parachutes!

Why? Because we _don't_ make these decisions based on the horrible
injuries we visualize; we decide based on a combination of the
_likelihood_ of injury, and the effectiveness of the safety measure,
in addition to the severity of any likely injury. Briefly, you can't
protect against everything (despite the modern fashion of attempting
to do so). If the injuries are too mild, too unlikely, or can't be
effectively protected, you should not waste money on protection.

> The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
> receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
> they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
> usuallly have permanent consequences.


There's your other major mistake. When cyclists receive "unprotected
head injuries" they are certainly NOT "usually tragic." You've fallen
for the helmet promotion scam of equating "head injury" with "serious
brain injury." They are NOT the same.

For example: Read the original 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper, the
darling source of propaganda for helmeteers, the source of the "85%"
claim. Of the 235 "head injuries" they found, 111 were merely
scrapes, cuts and bruises of the forehead. They even state in a
footnote, ""Forehead injuries (abrasions and lacerations) are
classified by the AIS system as facial injuries; in the present work
they were classified as head injuries." Nothing like inflating
numbers to scare people!

Furthermore, of the 235, there were 102 scalp injuries. Those are
never debilitating, just messy. And a further 19 were mere scrapes
and cuts to the ears.

Got that? A cut ear was called a "head injury."

Of the actual brain injuries, 98 were either AIS 1 ("mild") or AIS 2
("moderate"). Of the total 235 "head" injuries, only 28 were rated
"serious" or above.

When "head injuries" happen to cyclists, they are usually AIS 0,
according to Thompson & Rivara - although the official AIS scale
doesn't even reach as low as zero. The people who invented the AIS
injury scale understand that there are many injuries too trivial to
worry about.

Too bad the helmet promoters don't admit that! And too bad that
helmet fans don't understand it!

Regarding the rest of your fearmongering:


> And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
> results in permanent paralysis of some body parts...
>
> When applied to the individual
> who has the right side of his body payalyzed after an unprotected a
> fall from a cycle the benefit/cost ratio you quoted likely approaches
> zero. Having fun with math yet????


Let me describe something that's happened a few times in these
discussions. We've had several posts from doctors, from
psychologists, and from others whose work consists of caring for
people with serious, permanent brain injury. In fact, one member of
our bicycle club was employed in such work. All of those people said
"If you could see what I see, you'd wear a helmet."

I asked each of those people - including our bike club member - how
many of your permanently brain injured clients got their injuries
while cycling?

They all either admitted the same thing, or simply refused to answer.
The answer from my fellow club member was typical: "Well, there was
only one. He was a bicycle racer." Note that as a bicycle racer, he
was probably wearing a helmet; they're required in all American races,
whether or not they do any good.

When I asked where the other clients come from, the answer was "Car
crashes, mostly. A few motorcycle crashes, and other stuff." She
could have added more detail. I've looked at national data, and it
turns out that falls around the home are the second most common
cause. There are also a fair number from near-drownings, it seems,
although I haven't yet located a number for that.

All of these people, when pressed, admitted that bicyclists just don't
make up any significant portion of their case load. My club friend
said she'd worked full time in the field for seven years and only
encountered that one cyclist.

Check the national data. Find a comprehensive list of sources of
serious brain injury. Cycling is usually not even on the list. In
fact, cyclists are literally less than 1% of the head injury
fatalities in America.

Basically, John, you've bought into the propaganda completely. You've
read websites that declare their objective is to mandate helmets for
all ages everywhere, and you've believed the out-of-context numbers
they throw up in order to scare you. But you've been duped. If you
want to prevent needless tragedy, work on the 99% of the head injury
problem that has nothing to do with bicycling!

Bicycling does NOT carry an unusual risk of head injury. Bicycling is
NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

Frank Krygowski
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> I recall the motorcyclists making similar arguments. In some states,
>> they've even managed to repeal the mandatory helmet laws - not to their
>> overall benefit.

>
>> For instance, when Arkansas repealed its mandatory helmet law,
>> motorcycle fatalities increased 21% in a single year. Pennsylvania
>> experienced a 51% increase. Und so weiter.

>
>How much did motorcycling increase? I've heard that it's *MUCH* more
>popular these days, including all sorts of TV shows about it. How many
>died instead of becoming vegtables? The devil is in the details the control
>freaks always leave out.


Or sometimes the devil just lies.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_337697.html

In the year after a new law permitted Pennsylvania motorcyclists to
ride helmetless, the number of deaths has decreased enough to maybe
let some Big Ben critics breathe a sigh of relief.

The number of motorcyclists killed on Pennsylvania highways dropped to
157 last year from 171 in 2003, the state Department of Transportation
announced Tuesday.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are
>> worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick,

>
>Senior citizens must drive faster in your parts.


Faster here than in Florida (except for the 100mph through red-light
types which exist in Florida), I don't know about Chicago.

>> and
>> because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but
>> refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes.

>
>If I am taking the lane there is damn good reason for it. (usually
>because I am keeping up with the vehicle in front of me or to my left)


Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just as good as
any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to let them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
A

Arif Khokar

Guest
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road,
>>> then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to
>>> pass.


>> What about those interstate highways where trucks go well under the
>> limit while ascending a grade. I have to use another lane to pass them,
>> yet you don't seem to have a problem with this.


> Often when that's expected to be the case, a climbing lane is
> provided.


Not in all cases. There are several grades on I-79 in WV and I-81 in VA
that do not have climbing lanes that I'm aware of.

> Truckers who don't use it are assholes like line-taking
> bicyclists


A truck using the rightmost lane isn't an asshole by any stretch of the
colloquial definition; neither is a cyclist.

> (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't
> provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make
> their trucks narrow enough to pass.


Sure they can. They can put most if not all of their vehicle on the
shoulder, with their right wheels inches from the grass/guardrail/jersey
barrier. That's what you expect cyclists to do, right?
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>>
>> Paying to turn and baste the likes of you for fifty years.

>
> Do you ever have anything constructive to post? ever?
>
>
>


I answered your question.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:


>> (probably learned from gpstroll). If climbing lanes aren't
>> provided, there's not much choice the truckers have; they can't make
>> their trucks narrow enough to pass.

>
>Sure they can. They can put most if not all of their vehicle on the
>shoulder, with their right wheels inches from the grass/guardrail/jersey
>barrier. That's what you expect cyclists to do, right?


I want cyclists to move to the rightmost part of the lane. I do not expect
them to put any of their vehicle off the pavement.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>
> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs
> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.


IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to
let others pay for your care.

>
> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although
> with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health
> and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some
> measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any
> convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said
> helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost
> due to its bicycling members regardless of their hat wearing status.


Not proven.
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
>>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>>
>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
>> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs
>> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.

>
>IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to
>let others pay for your care.


As partial compensation for my employment, my employer pays a premium
to an insurance company so that in the event I become injured or ill,
the insurance company will pay for my care.

Is there some reason I should forgo this benefit if I am injured while
riding a bicycle without a helmet? As opposed to if I am injured
driving, skydiving, rock climbing, playing football, or base jumping?

Note that it is NOT a feature of the insurance policy that I limit my
risks to what other policyholders consider "reasonable".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> Do you wear a Medic Alert Bracelet specifying that you not be treated
>>> prior to proving that you can pay for the treatment?

>>
>> Ahhh... the socialist argument. The one where since the 'masses' be it
>> through private insurance or government are used to distribute costs
>> that the self appointed control freaks use to justify taking power.

>
> IOW, you are NOT willing to wear such a bracelet. And yoe ARE willing to
> let others pay for your care.


I am one of those people who is being leached upon through both insurance
and taxes.

>> The socialist argument can be knocked down a number of ways. Although
>> with bicycle helmets it's very easy. Bicycling promotes good health
>> and lowers the cost to the 'group'. Even if bicycle helmets had some
>> measurable benefit with regard to head injuries (I have not seen any
>> convincing evidence of one beyond scrapes), bicycling without said
>> helmet is still a net positive. The 'group' always sees a lower cost
>> due to its bicycling members regardless of their hat wearing status.


> Not proven.


The health benefits of bicycling are well proven. And even the helmet
zealots admit that the injury they are trying to protect us from is
rather rare.
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you don't like the way I use the right lane, pass me in the left.

>
>
> The left lane is for traffic coming the other way.


Obviously there is a lot of motorist-motorist passing on 2 lane roads.
So pass bicyclists similarly.


>
>
>>That's how competent drivers deal with slower traffic. If you can't
>>do that, don't drive.

>
>
> Competent, law abiding drivers get stuck behind slower traffic. The
> only way around that, when the slower traffic is a car, is to break
> the law and cross the double yellow. Bicyclists who take the lane are
> worse because they're going even slower than Grandma in her Buick, and
> because they could move over to allow a safe pass within the lane, but
> refuse to -- in other words, they're assholes.


No, bicyclists are easier to pass because they are going slow.
Bicyclists who don't move over to allow passing in their lane do so
because they don't believe motorists can do it without compromising
their safety. They've previously generously allowed motorists to use
their lane only to be buzzed by jerkoffs.

Wayne
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:


> Maybe. But when Wayne the Pain takes a lane, it's because he's just
> as good as any car and they can pass him when he's good and ready to
> let them.



Ignoramus,

I'm better than any car.

Wayne
 
W

Wayne Pein

Guest
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> I want cyclists to move to the rightmost part of the lane. I do not expect
> them to put any of their vehicle off the pavement.


I want you to move into the adjacent lane.

Wayne