Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
> look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
> could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
> acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries.
Which is, of course, absolutely false.
First: I listed at least four ways in which bike helmets could be made
more protective. Not all of them required the helmet looking like a
motorcycle helmet. Yes, it's true that current full-face motorcycle
helmets would have those features; but that does NOT mean every helmet
with those features would look like a motorcycle helmet. If that
difference isn't apparent to you, I suggest some training in logic.
Second: There are _many_ ways I know about helmet design, and what it
would take to make helmets more protective. First, I've got degrees in
Mechanical Engineering. I'm a licensed Professional Engineer (just as,
I assume, you are a licensed dentist). I've studied the issue of bike
helmets intensely for well over ten years. In fact, I first started
learning about helmet design at a conference in 1970, where I attended
a presentation on that topic. At one point, I even did comparative
tests on a wide variety of foams used for impact protection.
I'll admit I don't know much about teeth. But there's no way I'd say
_you_ (a licensed dentist) don't know about teeth. Similarly, it's
ludicrous for you to say I don't know about helmets. You don't have
the knowledge or background to judge.
> He
> went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
> broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
> would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
> their promotion would discourage cycling.
And this is true. In fact, I would not be interested in developing
safer bike helmets for the same reason I would not be interested in
developing safer pedestrian helmets. For both ordinary cycling and
ordinary walking, the level of danger is low enough that special
headgear is unnecessary. And we don't need people pretending
otherwise.
> I told him that, having known
> much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
> (including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
> to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
> callous.
Yes, and I've known people that have been badly injured by walking.
Worse, I've lost count of the friends I've lost to driving fatalities.
Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
examples of tragic injuries.
But your accusation that I avoid the issue of cycling safety simply
shows that' you're speaking in ignorance. Read the safety articles at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html
That's a website I helped found. I also wrote many of the articles
posted there. And, BTW, I've been Safety Chairman of my fairly large
bike club for many years. I've put on many presentations related to
bike safety and taught many classes on bike safety, as well as other
aspects of cycling. I'm a certified League Cycling Instructor. Have
you done as much?
But I'm very interested in your attitude that if someone is skeptical
of helmets, they must not care about safety. IOW, your mind confuses
"Safety" and "Helmet," as if helmets are all there is to bike safety.
It's a common mistake since helmet promotion hit high gear - but it's
(sorry) quite stupid.
> For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
> maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
> cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
> better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.
You've proven you know nothing about my background, the causes I
advocate, my knowledge or my skills. When a person knows as little as
you do about a subject, they really should stop talking. It's the only
way to prevent looking foolish.
- Frank Krygowski