Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



In article <3w4Ne.2836$wb.2818@trndny09>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
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


There is no "anti-helmet crowd." It is all in your head.

[...]

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation
>> seem

>
> There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind.


That's funny, I could have sworn it's been on my computer screen!
 
Bob the Cow wrote:

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


Virtually or morally?

--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email protected]
 
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>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.


No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights.
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 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:42:54 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<iU2Ne.9769$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

> > 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.


So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
"woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/0932eb63e019ed2d?dmode=source&hl=en

But once again you "forgot" to post any evidence! So, where is your
externally verifiable evidence that these systems are "woefully
inadequate"? Per-mile collision data for dynamo versus battery users
would prove your point nicely.

You also say "The only good dynamo system remains the very expensive
Dymotec S12 with its 12 volt/5W headlight." This conflicts with the
opinions of a very large number of dynamo users: the SON 6V hub is
widely reckoned to be the best dynamo on the market.

You also instruct people not to rely on the generator lighting systems
on the commuter bikes you discuss on your pages. I guess that since
you read on a web page somewhere that you are "one of Earth's leading
experts on bicycle lighting" that must make your judgment superior to
that of the manufacturers of those bikes, to say nothing of the many
cyclists who have bought them and mysteriously failed to die as a
result of their "woefully inadequate" lighting. Mind you, a 0.2W LED
is enough to stop side-impacts, it's only 3W headlights which are
inadequate...

>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.


Once again you miss the point. This is not really about lighting,
it's about the way you make dogmatic assertions, falsely portray as
extremists those who would allow cyclists to make choices other than
the one you make, as if it is your dogmatic view which is balanced:
you do not permit of the possibility that you may be wrong, but when
challenged for hard evidence you are mysteriously silent.

I guess to a zealot like you every agnostic looks like an atheist :)
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 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person
> known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>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.

>
>
> No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights.
> Guy


But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is
their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty
dim). The problem with battery systems is that the batteries, go flat.

So, how about combining the two, a hub generator outputs power at all
times, so it would be charging the battery, ride all day, and your
battery is fully charged, then you can ride all night, without being
concerned with a battery that is going to go flat.

W
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> 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.


The only reason they seem to be saying that is because you're not reading
for comprehension. It usually goes something like this:

Helmet Zealot: Everybody should wear a helmet.
FK: Why? What benefit do they provide?
HZ: They prevent head injuries.
FK: What kind of head injuries?
HZ: All of 'em.
FK: Really? Cite?
HZ: You're claiming they don't? Cite?
FK: Here you go.
HZ2: But helmets prevent most serious injuries, so everybody should
wear one.
FK: No, they don't, and if you ride as if they will you're exposing
yourself to more risk.
HZ2: But cycling is dangerous, and people need the helmet to protect
them.

....and this is where risk compensation gets introduced. If the protective
measure is completely inadequate for its intended function, then it *is*
useless, risk compensation or not - and if it's assumed to be effective,
it's worse than useless, because of the risk compensation that that
assumption leads to.

Of course, Frank isn't always as clear as he could be on the subject,
but I think that's an unavoidable consequence of the amount of time he
spends arguing with idiots about it. When the best response you can
hope for, no matter how well you present something, is a blank stare
(or the usenet equivalent), there's no way to tell whether you need to
improve your presentation, and not much of an incentive to do so either.

Which is why it's nice to have people who don't spend enough time arguing
with idiots to run into that, but aren't sick enough of it that they
don't occasionally stick their heads in to address some particularly
egregious reasoning errors. I like to think I'm one of those.



>
>Dave Vandervies wrote:


>> 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.


Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as
him for that (if not more).

And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote.
Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be
allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand
what we're trying to tell you?


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
(In the interest of full disclosure, I do, however, have a friend
who is a rocket scientist.)
--Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> 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.

>
> The only reason they seem to be saying that is because you're not
> reading for comprehension. It usually goes something like this:
>
> Helmet Zealot: Everybody should wear a helmet.
> FK: Why? What benefit do they provide?
> HZ: They prevent head injuries.
> FK: What kind of head injuries?
> HZ: All of 'em.


Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)

Thanks for playing; enjoy your lovely parting gift. {pause} HOPE IT FITS!
<eg>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:


>> HZ: All of 'em.

>
>Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)


Probably not in so many words, but given the reactions that come up when
somebody tries to point out that a helmet really isn't much more than
a scratch protector, it's hardly unfair as a one-line summary.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
(In the interest of full disclosure, I do, however, have a friend
who is a rocket scientist.)
--Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Vandervies wrote:

>
>>> HZ: All of 'em.

>>
>> Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)

>
> Probably not in so many words, but given the reactions that come up
> when somebody tries to point out that a helmet really isn't much more
> than
> a scratch protector


Bzzt! You're two-for-two!

:-D
 
The Wogster wrote:

> So, how about combining the two, a hub generator outputs power at all
> times,


The hub generator does NOT ouput power at all times. When there is no
load on a generator it is much easier to spin. A hub generator does have
a little resistance at all times, but not enough to worry about.

> so it would be charging the battery, ride all day, and your
> battery is fully charged, then you can ride all night, without being
> concerned with a battery that is going to go flat.


Okay, let's look at a medium size battery, 12V 4AH. This is 48WH. It
would take sixteen hours of riding, assuming no losses, to charge the
battery with a 3W dynamo. A small battery would be about 24WH, and it
would take only eight hours of riding to charge.

There are 6W dynamos available if a 3W headlamp is not sufficient for
your needs.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
> "woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/0932eb63e019ed2d?dmode=source&hl=en


Very creative snipping.

Yes as a matter of fact, "woefully inadequate" is _not_ the same as
"unsafe."

First of all, they are woefully inadequate in the U.S., as I stated. But
this does not mean that they are unsafe. If the cyclist is riding fairly
slowly, on familiar roads, then a 3W light is safer than no light at
all, and better than most LED headlights.

You really are unable to respond without creating strawmen, or
misquoting. That speaks volumes about your positions on these issues.
You are becoming like Frank in terms of the lack of coherency of your
statements.
 
Bob the Cow wrote:
> "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.


How can I get a job like that?

> Oh, yeah, that and no life at all.


Well if that's the trade-off then forget it!
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:

> Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
> safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety,


Some people are just absolutely positive that everyone else in the world
believes that helmets are going to protect them in all types of
accidents. The fact that there are no people that actually believe this,
is a minor annoyance, because it is so easy to simply create strawmen
that believe it.
 
> Dave Vandervies wrote:
>> Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
>> safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety,


> Some people are just absolutely positive that everyone else in the world
> believes that helmets are going to protect them in all types of
> accidents. The fact that there are no people that actually believe this,
> is a minor annoyance, because it is so easy to simply create strawmen
> that believe it.


Interesting, a two sentence post where the first sentence creates the
type of strawman that is derided in the second sentence.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.


Hope I'm not down-graded.

>
> 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.


I don't disagree

>
> Risk compensation is real, and denying it is vacuous.



No one is denying it. I am denying that safety measures are fruitless.
I think it was Guy who suggested that road signs be removed in order
to make vehicular traffic safer.


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.



Only if his assessment is accurate.
>
> 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.



I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.

>


Steve

--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
>
> Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as
> him for that (if not more).
>
> And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote.
> Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be
> allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand
> what we're trying to tell you?
>
>
> dave



Dearest David:

Ad hom noted. I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more
effective, rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head
injury fatalities.

Steve Bornfeld

>



--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>
> I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.


I won't make that effort. As I said in my previous post: To make them
more effective, 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.

So it's simple. But the problems are these: You won't make them
_significantly_ more effective, and you will make them significantly
more unpleasant.

However, if a helmet of the above design sounds good to you, you can
buy one now. Go to a motorcycle shop.


One final point: I won't work on making helmets more effective,
because I do not believe ordinary cycling warrants a helmet. The risk
level does not justify such protective headgear. And strapping on ever
more protective gear just makes cycling look ever more dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.

>
>
> I won't make that effort.


I know you won't--that's my point.

As I said in my previous post: To make them
> more effective, 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.



You don't know (and CANNOT know) that that is the only way to do this.