Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:04:01 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<RdJMe.9573$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>> Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>> helmets.


>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>great.


No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions
of dynamo users, it's far and away the most common system on the
Dutch, Danish and German bikes I've seen), you assert, though without
basis of any actual evidence, despite repeated challenges, that they
are somehow "not safe".

I have tried rechargeable, alkaline, sidewall dynamo, bottom bracket
dynamo and both vintage and modern hub dynamo systems, I commute at
night on urban and extra-urban roads, and following a lot of (very
expensive) trial and error I *know* what works best for me. The fact
that you disagree will not make this any less the case. I do not
spend hundreds of pounds on hub dynamos out of blind faith, I do it
because for me it represents the best utility solution. It works.

I'd be interested, though, if you have any good quality externally
verifiable evidence that use of lights makes any measurable difference
to night-time cycling safety at all. Here I freely admit that I am
taking on trust the idea that I am safer with lights - I do not
actually know of any credible research evidence to prove it.

>Look at the writings of Ken Kifer if you would like to learn from
>someone who was able to understand that what he chose to do, was not
>necessarily the best choice for everyone. For example, on the subject of
>lights for commuting, he wrote, "For commuters, the best front light is
>the very bright rechargeable lamp."


As ever, you choose to cite only those authorities which support your
cherished beliefs, ignoring all others as if they do not exist.

http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/index.htm is a more balanced and honest
source of information. It is probably no coincidence that, although
audax riders use every kind of light, the SON is more prevalent among
audax riders than any other kind of rider I have met.

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, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:04:01 GMT, the person
> known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<RdJMe.9573$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
>
>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>helmets.

>
>
>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>great.

>
>
> No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
> millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
> on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions


<snip>

Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.
 
In article <XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.

>
> People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
> it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
> belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.
>
> It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
> world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.


Well, it has been said that "faith" is another way of saying that one
believes what one knows cannot be true.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.

>>
>>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.
>>
>>It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
>>world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.

>
>
> Well, it has been said that "faith" is another way of saying that one
> believes what one knows cannot be true.


Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are
so unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is
because they want others to share their faith in what they know to be
untrue. Evangelists are always the most insecure people.

I was once very anti-helmet, and I still strongly believe that MHLs are
a big mistake. However after reading all the studies, I conceded that
helmets do have some benefit should the unlikely head impact crash occur.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> It so happens I remember that particular conversation as well and I also
> remember it the way that Frank does. If you have a different version you're
> perfectly free to google it up and show us.


If it existed, we could 'google it up.'

> > I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
> > mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
> > cycling' is not.

>
> Of course you do. Whereas only a very small number of people practice
> "technical mountain biking" and yet comprise something like 5% of the
> fatalities if I remember correctly.


Without a citation, I can only assume you are
making **** up.

> Now, mind you, that STILL isn't very dangerous, but since mountain biking
> has the sort of accidents in general for which a helmet is at least in the
> proper speed regime, you can make a lot better case for forcing helmets onto
> off-road mtn biking that on-road biking.


...okay...I'll keep that in mind. Because universal mandatory helmet
laws ARE the goal of my Evil Plan,
Tom.

Robert
 
I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:45:18 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<i_PMe.9641$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

[Scharf asserts: "People that are normally logical on most subjects,
sometimes just lose it on certain subjects where they have a strong
belief, even if that belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common
sense]

>>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>>helmets.


>>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>>great.


>> No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
>> millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
>> on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions


><snip>


Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.

So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
lighting is unsafe. Can you cite the per-mile casualty figures for
dynamo versus rechargeable users? That would seem to be the very
minimum that would be required to make such an assertion in the face
of the fact that millions of cyclists around the world use them daily.

Oh, wait, no - it's just the dynamo part that makes them unsafe, isn't
it? I remember now that you thought the 0.2W LEDs on the side of the
TL-LD1000 would be sufficient to prevent side-on collisions.

>Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
>to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.


As stated: you are a perfect example of the fault of which you accuse
others. Instead of citing evidence to back your assertions, you link
a site with "the facts", conveniently forgetting to mention that it is
your own site. You say: "Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading
experts on bicycle lighting" and you seem to believe that is all the
proof which is required. When pressed, you hide behind your website
where you control both medium and message.

You disagree with many other experts, many of whom recommend, use and
supply a type of lighting which you dogmatically assert is unsafe,
though without the basis of any verifiable evidence.

So; go somewhere impartial like http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/ - I
note that you snipe at it having "a lot of incorrect information"
although you don't actually say what that incorrect information might
be. It couldn't possibly be the bits that say dynamo lighting is a
good solution, could it? Surely not.

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 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:37:51 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are
>so unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is



At least part of the reason is that numerous people exaggerate the
efficacy of helmets and the danger of cycling, and the number of
people doing that seems to be growing. Frank is trying to stem that
tide and I'm glad he's doing it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:45:18 GMT, the person
> known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<i_PMe.9641$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
> [Scharf asserts: "People that are normally logical on most subjects,
> sometimes just lose it on certain subjects where they have a strong
> belief, even if that belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common
> sense]
>
>
>>>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>>>helmets.

>
>
>>>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>>>great.

>
>
>>>No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
>>>millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
>>>on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions

>
>
>><snip>

>
>
> Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
> assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.
>
> So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
> lighting is unsafe. Can you cite the per-mile casualty figures for
> dynamo versus rechargeable users? That would seem to be the very
> minimum that would be required to make such an assertion in the face
> of the fact that millions of cyclists around the world use them daily.
>
> Oh, wait, no - it's just the dynamo part that makes them unsafe, isn't
> it? I remember now that you thought the 0.2W LEDs on the side of the
> TL-LD1000 would be sufficient to prevent side-on collisions.
>
>
>>Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
>>to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.

>
>
> As stated: you are a perfect example of the fault of which you accuse
> others. Instead of citing evidence to back your assertions, you link
> a site with "the facts", conveniently forgetting to mention that it is
> your own site. You say: "Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading
> experts on bicycle lighting" and you seem to believe that is all the
> proof which is required. When pressed, you hide behind your website
> where you control both medium and message.
>
> You disagree with many other experts, many of whom recommend, use and
> supply a type of lighting which you dogmatically assert is unsafe,
> though without the basis of any verifiable evidence.
>
> So; go somewhere impartial like http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/ - I
> note that you snipe at it having "a lot of incorrect information"
> although you don't actually say what that incorrect information might
> be. It couldn't possibly be the bits that say dynamo lighting is a
> good solution, could it? Surely not.
>


I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a
trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery
power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds. First the battery
is always charged, and you can run a higher powered lamp then the
generator alone could handle. Since the charger is running even at
night, it would take a long time to totally discharge the battery.

W
 
Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
>>and no airbag.

> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
>a ride)


Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
increase it to some higher figure.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, August.
 
Quoting <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did not say
>>that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please reread it until
>>you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we can discuss it.

>You wrote:
>>>>the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>equally "once an accident has happened".

>I'm guessing you meant "equal".


Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
wrote?

>When you stop with the juvenile insults, does that mean we've started
>"discussing"?


I'm sorry if you find it insulting, but it is not possible to discuss this
with you if you are unable to comprehend was is written. You might find it
easier if you read what _is_ written, not second-guess what might have
been written.

>Yes, comparing caving to cycling is reeeeaching for a handhold since
>the activities are so very different, especially as relates to helmets
>and banging your head. Being hit by a rockfall while cycling? Beyond
>"vanishing", although I'm sure someone can anecdote.


Once again you either fail to comprehened the original point or are simpyl
being obtuse. Go back and rearead it.

>>Yes, yes, good rationalisation, just like everyone else's.

>The "impatience of the superior being" ploy. Road rash beats helmet RC,
>here. If you don't agree, fine.


Neat dodge, but you still haven't explained why your rationalisation is so
much better than anyone else's.

>>>"Did you try hitting her head without the helmet" is close enough to
>>>the quote.

>>Apart from being, er, completely different. "Did you try X", where X is
>>clearly ridiculous, is not even approximately like "You should try X".

>This nasty response is so telling. Wiggling doesn't fix anything.


There's nothing to fix. You lied about what I wrote, and I pointed out you
were lying.

>>>I understand that at least some kinds of medical care in Canada are
>>>very, very slow.

>>Including emergency care after crashes? I think not.

>http://www.stopthewaiting.ca/


Ah, when "very, very slow" means "somewhat slow in a way that wouldn't
create the behaviour you were insinuating exists". No surprise these.

>>>I got my first racing license in 1980.

>>Obviously an 11-year-old child had plenty of time to observe you then.

>Less obvious, having any success even as a USA parking-lot amateur
>means hours in the saddle (riding on public roads in vehicle traffic),
>and experience riding in groups.


None of which means that your behaviour in 1980 was observed by someone
who is 11 now.

>>No, that's the way any rational person would interpret "no
>>helmet, no bike".

>You can refuse to accept my words; the challenge is to do it without
>insult and sarcasm.


When you write something that isn't so ridiculous, sure.

>>So why not still "no kneepad, no bike"? If falls onto the knee are less
>>common, so are falls onto the head.

>May I borrow from the methodology? "Go have some children and see if
>you still ask that question".


This does sound rather like an admission that your position is not
rationally considered but a purely emotional response.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, August.
 
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did
>>> not say that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please
>>> reread it until you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we
>>> can discuss it.

>> You wrote:
>>>>> the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>> equally "once an accident has happened".

>> I'm guessing you meant "equal".

>
> Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
> course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
> wrote?


"the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally
'once an accident has happened'" makes no sense.

HTH, BS
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
> assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.
>
> So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
> lighting is unsafe.


You're looking more and more like Frank, trying to create strawmen. I
have never stated that dynamo lighting is unsafe.

Again, if you want to discuss the relative merits of each type of
lighting system, please start a thread on that subject. This thread has
digressed enough as it is.
 
David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
>>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
>>>and no airbag.

>>
>> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
>>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
>>a ride)

>
>
> Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
> the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
> increase it to some higher figure.


Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd
claim that many people will ride less if they are required to wear a
helmet. I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.
However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
avoidance will be real and not imaginary.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
> >>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
> >>>and no airbag.
> >>
> >> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
> >>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
> >>a ride)

> >
> >
> > Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
> > the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
> > increase it to some higher figure.

>
> Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd
> claim that many people will ride less if they are required to wear a
> helmet.


Again: the "anti-helmet crowd" is not interested in forbidding
helmets. It's much more accurate to describe me as "helmet skeptic."

But yes, we do claim that people will ride less if required to wear a
helmet. And, as is usually the case, we have data that shows that's
true. Wearing a helmet is a negative to most people. If not, most
people would be wearing them all the time.


> I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.


IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
personal testimony about your risk compensation.


> However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
> when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
> avoidance will be real and not imaginary.


And, yet again: There is NOBODY who is seriously proposing that
helmets be outlawed.

But there are many people - in legislatures, in lobbying groups, on
helmet promotion websites - that propose that bicycling without a
helmet should be outlawed.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Again: the "anti-helmet crowd" is not interested in forbidding
> helmets. It's much more accurate to describe me as "helmet skeptic."
>
> But yes, we do claim that people will ride less if required to wear a
> helmet. And, as is usually the case, we have data that shows that's
> true. Wearing a helmet is a negative to most people. If not, most
> people would be wearing them all the time.
>
>
>
>> I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.

>
>
> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
> personal testimony about your risk compensation.


Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)
Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!

Steve
>
>
>
>> However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
>>when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
>>avoidance will be real and not imaginary.

>
>
> And, yet again: There is NOBODY who is seriously proposing that
> helmets be outlawed.
>
> But there are many people - in legislatures, in lobbying groups, on
> helmet promotion websites - that propose that bicycling without a
> helmet should be outlawed.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
In article <Dy7Ne.2831$wb.2478@trndny08>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:


>> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>> personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>
> Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
>you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)


Or if you do something with the helmet that you wouldn't do without it,
because of the (perceived) protection that you get from the helmet.

> Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
>the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
>So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
>risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!


How is that silly? If you're picking up a hot pan that you wouldn't pick
up without the potholder, you're compensating for the protection that
the potholder provides by doing something that would be prohibitively
dangerous without it.

What you're missing is that risk compensation isn't inherently a Bad
Thing; if you're correctly assessing the risks involved and the protection
provided by safety equipment, risk compensation is what allows you to
do things that are desirable or important but that would be dangerous
under some conditions - like, say, getting out of bed in the morning.
Would you trust your potholder to protect you if you were picking up, say,
a red-hot horseshoe fresh off of a blacksmith's anvil? Why or why not?
Would it be silly and/or stupid to give the opposite answer?

For an illustration that's on topic here: When I'm riding my bike
at night, I just turn on my lights and proceed to ride the same way
as I would during the day without worrying about not being seen; I'm
compensating for the added safety provided by the lights (people can see
that I'm there because of the lights, even if they can't actually see me
or the bike) by doing something that decreases my safety (not worrying
about getting out of the way of other road users because they might
not know I'm there). Would it be stupid to assume that I was visible
at night without the lights? Would it be silly to stop and pull off
of the road every time a car came by because they might not see me,
even if I had my lights on?


Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety, and
the compensation for the perceived extra safety actually puts you at
significant extra risk. If I gave you a thin plastic glove (like the
ones used by food handlers at fast-food restaurants) and told you that it
would protect your hand from the hot pan (and you believed me), would you
go ahead and pick up the pan with it? If you burned your hand doing it,
would you conclude that picking up hot pans is dangerous and therefore
a Bad Thing to do, or that the glove didn't provide the protection
I claimed it would and that something that actually did provide that
protection would make it safe to pick up the pan?


Go read the description of what kind of impact helmets are actually rated
for (you should have no trouble finding references in any of three or
four current threads). After reading it, would you trust that to protect
you from anything you wouldn't be able to walk away from without it?
If not, why are you doing something with the helmet that puts you at
(perceived) risk of serious injury without it?


Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought
through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>> personal testimony about your risk compensation.


and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it
makes sense.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
[Y]ou're overlooking the origin of the doctrine, which is inherently based
in mercy, something God has been accused of from time to time, with varying
degrees of justification. --Eric Schwartz in the scary devil monastery
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3wSMe.9652$p%[email protected]...
> Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are so
> unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is because
> they want others to share their faith in what they know to be untrue.
> Evangelists are always the most insecure people.


That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised
access to computers.

Oh, yeah, that and no life at all.
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <Dy7Ne.2831$wb.2478@trndny08>,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:

>
>
>>>IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>>>because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>>>would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>>>personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>>
>> Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
>>you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)

>
>
> Or if you do something with the helmet that you wouldn't do without it,
> because of the (perceived) protection that you get from the helmet.
>
>
>> Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
>>the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
>>So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
>>risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!

>
>
> How is that silly? If you're picking up a hot pan that you wouldn't pick
> up without the potholder, you're compensating for the protection that
> the potholder provides by doing something that would be prohibitively
> dangerous without it.
>
> What you're missing is that risk compensation isn't inherently a Bad
> Thing; if you're correctly assessing the risks involved and the protection
> provided by safety equipment, risk compensation is what allows you to
> do things that are desirable or important but that would be dangerous
> under some conditions - like, say, getting out of bed in the morning.
> Would you trust your potholder to protect you if you were picking up, say,
> a red-hot horseshoe fresh off of a blacksmith's anvil? Why or why not?
> Would it be silly and/or stupid to give the opposite answer?


Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
promote risky behavior. There is no acknowledgement that there is any
benefit to safety devices or behaviors. No time in this very lengthy
debate (to my knowledge) is spent on speculating how safety devices can
be improved; only whether they have a right to exist at all

>
> For an illustration that's on topic here: When I'm riding my bike
> at night, I just turn on my lights and proceed to ride the same way
> as I would during the day without worrying about not being seen; I'm
> compensating for the added safety provided by the lights (people can see
> that I'm there because of the lights, even if they can't actually see me
> or the bike) by doing something that decreases my safety (not worrying
> about getting out of the way of other road users because they might
> not know I'm there). Would it be stupid to assume that I was visible
> at night without the lights? Would it be silly to stop and pull off
> of the road every time a car came by because they might not see me,
> even if I had my lights on?
>
>
> Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
> safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety, and
> the compensation for the perceived extra safety actually puts you at
> significant extra risk. If I gave you a thin plastic glove (like the
> ones used by food handlers at fast-food restaurants) and told you that it
> would protect your hand from the hot pan (and you believed me), would you
> go ahead and pick up the pan with it? If you burned your hand doing it,
> would you conclude that picking up hot pans is dangerous and therefore
> a Bad Thing to do, or that the glove didn't provide the protection
> I claimed it would and that something that actually did provide that
> protection would make it safe to pick up the pan?
>
>
> Go read the description of what kind of impact helmets are actually rated
> for (you should have no trouble finding references in any of three or
> four current threads). After reading it, would you trust that to protect
> you from anything you wouldn't be able to walk away from without it?
> If not, why are you doing something with the helmet that puts you at
> (perceived) risk of serious injury without it?
>
>
> Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought
> through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>>>because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>>>would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>>>personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>>

>
> and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it
> makes sense.


It makes sense, as does my response--because the use of the term "risk
compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be.

Steve

>
>
> dave
>



--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting <[email protected]>:
>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>> Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did
>>>> not say that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please
>>>> reread it until you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we
>>>> can discuss it.
>>> You wrote:
>>>>>> the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>>> equally "once an accident has happened".
>>> I'm guessing you meant "equal".

>>
>> Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
>> course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
>> wrote?

>
> "the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally
> 'once an accident has happened'" makes no sense.


Do you suppose that's what he meant when he said that he meant to write
"equally"? I'm thinking that what he's saying is that he meant to write
nonsense.
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
> to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
> function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
> promote risky behavior.


That phrase "seem to say" is as accurate as a third grader saying "The
teacher seems to say three times four is fourteen." IOW, you must not
have been paying attention.

What we're saying - well expressed by Dave - is that whether a "safety"
measure is useful or not depends at least partly on whether the user
has a realistic sense of its protective effect.

Risk compensation is real, and denying it is vacuous. It's far too
easy to demonstrate. But that doesn't disprove the benefit of _any_
safety item. To attach hypothetical numbers (for explanation only), if
the person behaves 30% riskier and the protection is 40% greater, the
person still comes out ahead. If the person behaves 50% riskier with
that same protection, the person comes out behind.

What affects the person's behavior? In part, his estimate of
protection. As I've said before, side impact beams in car doors are
largely unknown to consumers. They're not visible, and people don't
think about their presence. They probably cause negligible risk
compensation. Therefore, if they have _any_ protective effect, it's
probably a net positive situation.

OTOH, helmets are constantly obvious on one's head. Worse, the public
has been convinced that they prevent 85% of truly serious head
injuries. Many people probably believe they prevent 85% of fatalities.
Given those facts, helmets probably generate extreme risk
compensation.

I really do believe that if people knew and understood the incredibly
low level of impact in the certification tests, helmet-induced risk
compensation would largely vanish. Unfortunately, the helmet promotion
hasn't started with "Helmets are 85% effective." It's started with
"Cycling is incredibly dangerous." At this point, I think our phobic
public would stop cycling entirely.

> There is no acknowledgement that there is any
> benefit to safety devices or behaviors.


I don't need to come in here and praise safety devices. We have an
entire industry, plus dozens of government agencies, doing that all the
time. It's reached ludicrous proportions.

Regarding "safety behaviors," I can discuss those readily. Those are
where the emphasis _should_ be. But it's not, not at all. "Bicycle
safety" has become equated with "bicycle helmet."

Maybe it's a natural effect of an instant gratification consumer
society - but
when people want to be safer, they don't try to _learn_ anything; they
try to _buy_ something. And hey, if that "something" fixes 85% of the
problem, why bother with learning?

> No time in this very lengthy
> debate (to my knowledge) is spent on speculating how safety devices can
> be improved; only whether they have a right to exist at all


We can talk about how to improve helmets, if that's what you want.
It's simple. Make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
and adjustment - maybe solid plastic.

One more thing: If you take the recommendation of the Thompson &
Rivara team (originators of the "85%" ****), you should build rigid
chin bars into all bike helmets. You know - full face helmets for
ordinary riding. They actually have called for such things.

Do all those things, and you can probably increase a bike helmet's
protective range from the current 14 mph impact of a decapitated head,
to perhaps an 18 mph impact of a decapitated head.


> the use of the term "risk
> compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be.


You know, I teach for a living. And I've learned that not all students
will get the subject material, no matter what I do or say.

Some just can't comprehend, and some just don't want to comprehend.

Whatever the reason, Steven, I'd recommend you drop this class. If you
truly don't understand what risk compensation is by now, you're just
not keeping up.

- Frank Krygowski