Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



Bill Sornson wrote:

> OK, I think I've got it now. You think a good argument to not wear a
> bicycle helmet is that if people wore them in cars (or on busses) they'd be
> injured less often. Brilliant!

You have concisely stated one of the key components of the AHZs.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> The more I read on this subject - on risk compensation, regression to
> the mean and other phenomena - the more sceptical I become of *any*
> claim that *any* road safety intervention has actually saved lives.
>


Depends on the type of intervention.

For example in the US a number of years ago the federal government
linked federal highway funds to the states with a requirement to reduce
speed limits. Highway deaths fell dramatically. But this is not at
variance with risk compensation. It is just that this particualr
intervention actually required compnesation towards less risky
behavior.
Of course, over time folks just ignored the speed limits and most
states have raised them.
 
An anonymous bike messenger wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > That may very well be true. But the safety comparison
> > > between b-ball and cycling is ultimately not a favorable
> > > one for us. Just ask the 25,000 or so people who have been
> > > fatally injured in bicycle accidents since the bike
> > > boom of the 1970's.
> >
> > :) Hey, neat trick! Instead of using just the numbers for the entire
> > US for _one_ year, you can use the total since 1975 so it sounds
> > scarier! After all, there were only 662 cyclist fatalities in the US
> > in 2002. Not very scary compared to the 37,000 motorists or the nearly
> > 5000 pedestrians, right?
>
> Sure, you can use the fatality stats for 2002, which
> I believe had the lowest number of cyclist deaths
> ever recorded. That's still a 662/0 ratio of fatalities
> in cycling versus basketball. In the face of these
> fatality numbers, your continued insistence that
> danger from cycling is 'in the same league' as that
> from playing basketball will be curious to say the least.

I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context. If someone says
bicycling is dangerous because of it's ER visits, I compare with ER
visits from other activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.

When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its fatality count
(as you just did) I compare with the fatality counts from other
activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.

When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its number of serious
head injuries, I compare with the number of serious head injuries from
other activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.

When someone says cycling is dangerous because of the number of serious
head injuries per hour, I compare with the number of serious head
injuries per hour from other activities. When I do, cylcing doesn't
look so bad.

And so on.

You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
out of context. Don't complain when I use comparisons to put it into
context.


>
>
> > BTW, how many motorists were killed since the bike boom of the 1970s?
>
> More than one million, I imagine.
>
> How does that jibe with 'driving is safe'? Help me
> understand.

I've tried to help you understand before. I'll try again.

The vast majority of Americans are not in any way afraid of motoring.
They judge the danger level of motoring to be acceptably low. Or in
common parlance, they judge driving to be safe.

Cycling is as safe, by the metrics described above. People should not
be quoting scary numbers about cycling, hoping to make cycling look
dangerous, unless they simultaneously compare with driving. Don't
demonize a healthful activity while canonizing a polluting activity.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:
> Race cars lack the safety equipment that is present in
> passenger vehicles.

:) In other words, the four-point safety harnesses that work better
than air bags should be ignored? The huge, stout roll cages that
protect far better than the car's bodywork should be ignored? The fire
extinguisher systems should be ignored? The nets over the driver's
windows should be ignored?

The safety equipment used in race cars allow race drivers to walk away
from crashes that would kill a person in a normal passenger car. To
pretend otherwise is ludicrous.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> > OK, I think I've got it now. You think a good argument to not wear a
> > bicycle helmet is that if people wore them in cars (or on busses) they'd be
> > injured less often. Brilliant!

> You have concisely stated one of the key components of the AHZs.

For once you are right: Bill has concisely stated a point nobody has
made, and this is indeed a key component of the group which does not
exist :)

--
Guy
 
gds <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > The more I read on this subject - on risk compensation, regression to
> > the mean and other phenomena - the more sceptical I become of *any*
> > claim that *any* road safety intervention has actually saved lives.

> Depends on the type of intervention.
> For example in the US a number of years ago the federal government
> linked federal highway funds to the states with a requirement to reduce
> speed limits. Highway deaths fell dramatically. But this is not at
> variance with risk compensation. It is just that this particualr
> intervention actually required compnesation towards less risky
> behavior.

Yes, it does depend on the intervention - and also on whether the
intervention is targeted at reducing harm to self or harm to others
(speed limits impose physical limits on the amount of danger a driver
poses to others). But even then it can be quite hard to actually prove
benefit.

> Of course, over time folks just ignored the speed limits and most
> states have raised them.

Risk compensation, up to a point.

You will find some people who argue for unlimited speeds, on the grounds
that the German Autobahn has a better safety record than US freeways.
These people tend to go a bit quiet when you point out that the fatality
rate on (speed limited) British motorways is half that of the A-bahn...

However, as I said, I am sceptical about claims of reduced deaths ,I do
not dismiss them out of hand. Sceptical is good, in my view.

--
Guy
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Yes, it does depend on the intervention - and also on whether the
> intervention is targeted at reducing harm to self or harm to others
> (speed limits impose physical limits on the amount of danger a driver
> poses to others). But even then it can be quite hard to actually prove
> benefit.

Actually the "target" was improved fuel consumption.

For motor traffic there are all sorts of interventions that work- at
one level or another. The use of "speed humps" or "speed bumps" on
residential streets clearly does have the effect of forcing (almost
all) drivers down the posted speed limit.
So does very strict selective enforcement. Here we have a 15 mph speed
limit posted around schools during the day. I have never seen someone
go any faster through these zones. There are also "crossing guards" in
most of these zones and while they can't stop cars they can get vehicle
descriptions and tag numbers. Folks know that if you get caught
speeding in these zones there is no question you will lose your
license.


>
> However, as I said, I am sceptical about claims of reduced deaths ,I do
> not dismiss them out of hand. Sceptical is good, in my view.
>

Sceptism is always good. But it works equally well in all directions.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> OK, I think I've got it now. You think a good argument to not wear
>>> a bicycle helmet is that if people wore them in cars (or on busses)
>>> they'd be injured less often. Brilliant!
>
>> You have concisely stated one of the key components of the AHZs.
>
> For once you are right: Bill has concisely stated a point nobody has
> made

You have Frank filtered?

> and this is indeed a key component of the group which does not
> exist :)

B.A.H., humbug. (Granted, an /extreme/ example.)

:-D
 
gds <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > Yes, it does depend on the intervention - and also on whether the
> > intervention is targeted at reducing harm to self or harm to others
> > (speed limits impose physical limits on the amount of danger a driver
> > poses to others). But even then it can be quite hard to actually prove
> > benefit.

> Actually the "target" was improved fuel consumption.

In 1970s America, yes, but in 2000s Britain the main target of speed
limt reduction is safety. It was, however, an intervention.

> > However, as I said, I am sceptical about claims of reduced deaths ,I do
> > not dismiss them out of hand. Sceptical is good, in my view.

> Sceptism is always good. But it works equally well in all directions.

Indeed it does. Once upon a time I was a helmet evangelist...

--
Guy
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That's the point. These possiblities of injury in cycling or riding a
>> bus are both extremely remote and hard to quantify. So both should
>> logically be treated the same.
>
>
>
> I would be the first to point out that your experience in cycling
> (or mine, for that matter) is not representative of the US population.
> But really, do you know people personally who have been injured on a
> city bus? Cycling?
> Maybe I just hang with the wrong crowd.

One of the things that I have, is a radio scanner, and programmed in are
the supervisor frequencies of the local transit system, guess what,
there is at least one incident of bus related injury, every day, most
days there are several. Lots of hard surfaces inside a bus, windows,
walls, poles, railings, floor, any of which can result in a head injury,
if struck with force. Most common though, people who trip getting on or
off.....

W
 
[email protected] wrote:
> And for that slight but expensive benefit, we have to live with a
> "safety" device that can kill kids and small adults! To me, it's a bad
> bargain. Personally, I think that's one odd benefit of airbags. The
> dire warnings that your airbag can kill you if you're not belted in
> place have probably caused more belt wearing!
>
> Now side impact airbags are the trend... hoping that nobody has their
> head leaning into the bag area during a side collision! "Sorry, Ma'am,
> but that airbag would have protected your kid if only it hadn't blown
> his head off."
>
> And of course, I've never heard why a $20 car helmet wouldn't be a much
> better bet than $500 worth of explosive inflatables placed all around
> the car.
>

It probably would be, ever priced out air bags though, they are closer
to $1500 a piece to replace. In fact many airbag equipped cars that
have relatively minor damage, are written off, because replacing the
airbags is too expensive for the insurance company.

Of course this is good for the car companies, because they get to sell
another car......

W
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Indeed it does. Once upon a time I was a helmet evangelist...
>
> --

Only when you believe so fervently can you rebel so strongly :)

Atheists ususally come out of orthodoxy.
 
In article
<1h0zam3.1eqssir5akpyjN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Just zis Guy, you know?)
wrote:

> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, it took no studies for the population
> > at large to know that heavy cigarette smoking is a health
> > risk. Everybody knew, including the smokers who asked to
> > bum a "coffin nail", and long before the national
> > brouhaha.
>
> You think? So during the days when they were promted by doctors as
> being good for you, and distributed to the forces, everyone /knew/
> there was a problem? I don't think so. I think it was the result fo
> those careful studies again.

Promoted by organizations, just as bicycle helmets are
promoted by organizations. People knew cigarettes were bad
for them, but used them anyway.

Just because they were promoted by organizations does not
prove anything.

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In 1988, who wore bike helmets? The guys who rode mountain bikes off
>8-foot drops did. I'd characterize them as risk takers who were
>greatly exceeding the helmet's protective spec. IOW, they were
>severely risk compensating.

Were they severely risk compensating, or would they have been doing the
same thing even if they didn't have helmets and therefore, in the absence
of adequate protection, chose inadequate protection over none at all?

(I'd guess a little bit of both, but it's an important distinction to
make in cases like this.)



>ISTM that these would be the people who would rush Johnnie to the ER
>when he fell and scraped his knee ("Flesh eating bacteria!!!").

I thought a hospital was the worst place to be if you were worried
about that?


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
> What, dare I ask is wrong with Canada?!
Well, for one thing, it's where Tom St Denis lives.
--Ian and Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c
 
I submit that on or about 8 Aug 2005 10:55:45 -0700, the person known
to the court as "gds" <[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>> Indeed it does. Once upon a time I was a helmet evangelist...

>Only when you believe so fervently can you rebel so strongly :)
>Atheists ususally come out of orthodoxy.

Do they? I didn't know that (if it's serious - it's plausible).

I am, of course, an agnostic. Of the tortured variety: I am
constantly racked with doubts about the whole issue and have to
revisit the evidence again and again.
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
 
I submit that on or about Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:10:00 -0700, the person
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>Does this seem to support my old notion (developed long ago when I was
>half-crazy from racing city traffic 23 miles to/from work every day) that we'd
>be better off if all cars were driven with the driver strapped to the bumper
>(and the exhaust pipe exiting with 18 inches of his ears)?

That's a variant on the old steel spike in the steering wheel theory,
isn't it? Many people readily accept this, but instinctively reject
risk compensation theory when applied to things like seat belts and
ABS.
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
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> I recall bringing in a cigarette ad that touted the brand (Camels?) as "soothing
> the T-zone" - complete with fake doctored in white coat and stethoscope pointing
> to a visual depicting the area of the throat that Camels helped.

http://216.218.189.70/~woody/ads.pdf
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see any handwringing, the United States has a population of
> >> around 275 Million, so out of that size population, 590,000 bike related
> >> injuries per year sounds reasonable, providing you look at it, as being
> >> all kinds of riding. For example you get urban riders who ride down
> >> stair railings, steps, jump curbs and similar activities, much more
> >> dangerous then regular riding - probably accounts for 20% of the
> >
> > This is where I stopped reading; you start with a quoted
> > statistic then use the word "probably" and start making up
> > your own data.
>
> Where is this "made up data"? Are you suggesting that guesses at odd sources
> of injuries is "made up data"?

Well, yeah.

>
> I suggest you go into an applicable bike shop and see what sort of bikes are
> used to Freestyling, BMX and the like. Ask them what "grinders" are and ask
> them how they're used.
>
> Next drop into the ER of any medium sized of larger city and ask them about
> freestyling injuries.

???

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You stated quite matter-of-factly that this person who
> > was caught agreeing with himself was a bike messenger.
> > Just making **** up, aren't you? I don't want to come
> > out and call you a Liar, but...uh...maybe you could
> > go back and find the posts in question--shouldn't be
> > too hard--just so we know you're not a shameless liar.
>
> Since I remember the incident too you can just say that you can call me a
> liar as well. It will have almost as much impact.
>
> > One more thing. How are we supposed to know for
> > certain that you don't do that yourself, make up
> > fake names and agree with yourself, or pretend to
> > be a helmet zealot so you have something to throw
> > your schtick at?
>
> Hey, that's an idea. Unnecessary as it is and all since there are always
> people like you who will tell us that the earth is flat.

It is popular to deride them, but read this first.
<http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm>

You may change your mind.

--
Michael Press
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
Replies
1K
Views
29K
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
T
Beltran's Helmet, act 2
Replies
6
Views
438
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
M
Who Clipped Beltran?
Replies
15
Views
695
Road Cycling
h squared
H
J
Beltran Abandons!!
Replies
35
Views
1K
Road Cycling
trg
T
T
Beltran in a Good Spot
Replies
4
Views
305
Road Cycling
Me
M
Top Bottom Back