Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.


However, the reduction was NOT due to reduced speed per se' since the speeds
on secondary roads - those in which the majority of fatal accidents occur -
was not effected.

The reduction was due mostly to REDUCED MILES BY PRIVATE OWNERS due in large
part to the expensive gasoline. In fact one of the piculiarities of the
latest gasoline cost is that mileage and hence accident rates haven't been
affected at all which means that the increase in gasoline prices isn't
bothering Americans at all.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> My favorite bus story was about an Oakland bus driver. Back in the day they
> carried about $100 in change and would make change for people getting on the
> bus and they would pay in cash for the fair.


Is this the right place to post the story about Ricky Henderson being given a
standing ovation in Oakland for breaking the record for stealing bases?


--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email protected]
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Perhaps you can then explain why there were 15 fatalities to NASCAR drivers
> between 1992 and 2002 and yet there were 410,000+ fatalities of normal
> everyday street drivers in that same period?


I expect it's because NASCAR racing is a dangerous sport. 15 is very
high considering the small number of Nascar drivers each year.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> My favorite bus story was about an Oakland bus driver. Back in the day they
> carried about $100 in change and would make change for people getting on the
> bus and they would pay in cash for the fair.
>
> One guy got on a bus and pulled a gun and pointed it at the bus driver and
> screamed "GIMME YOUR MONEY". Well the driver was responsible for that dough
> and he gave that gunman the finger. The gunman shot him twice with a .22
> pistol. The first shot bounced off of the drivers pocket pen and the second
> bounced off of his wrist watch. It ****** off the driver so much he chased
> that guy up the block and beat the **** out of him. I figured that gunman
> figured he'd come up against Superman.


Golly, is pocket pen and wrist watch SAVED HIS LIFE! Maybe it's time
to mandate those! Why, if only _one_ bus driver can be saved... ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context.


You make-a me laugh. Every time I put your numbers
in context, you have a royal freakout.

> If someone says
> bicycling is dangerous because of it's ER visits,


Nobody has said that in this thread, not that I've
read anyway. But that seems to be your most favored
style of 'discourse,' answering arguments that
haven't even been made. Never mind what somebody
actually says, out come the cookie cutter responses.

This army of helmet promoters
and the 'bike danger team' you describe don't
exist around rbwhatever as far as I can tell. So
I suggest you will have more success (and more fun
too perhaps) if you try discussing the issue(s) with the
people who are here, who also know a great deal about it,
and are eager for a good discussion, instead of arguing
against people who aren't even here, and who are highly
unlikely to read any of this, ever.

>I compare with ER
> visits from other activities.


You sure do.

> When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.


Really? On the surface, your sofa ER thing
makes cycling look not so bad. But to me, because I
know a little about the value of comparing
activities on a per-activity-hour basis, it makes
cycling look kinda bad actually. I wonder: why does
Frank want to make cycling look so dangerous? Does
it make him feel macho to make cycling look dangerous?

> When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its fatality count (as you just did)


Whoa doggy!!! You wish I said that. What I said was
that it's ludicrous to compare an activity that has
700 or so deaths every year and some unkown tens of
thousands of serious injuries associated with it to
an activity which has virtually none of these things.
That's what I said, that's what I am saying.

>I compare with the fatality counts from other
> activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.


Compared to other forms of traffic, you mean?
I notice you really don't like the idea of comparing
basketball and cycling in terms of fatalies. I agree
that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
rate to driving or walking near traffic, although
it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
that rate of injury is much higher for cycling. But
how much should we care about this? because as
you will be quick to point out the majority of these
injuries are fairly inconsequential(ER visits being
a distinct subset within total injuries, comprising
just 10-20% of total injuries). We already saw the
number for annual ER visits, we wouldn't want to
give it again as it sends Frank into a tizzy.

> When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its number of serious
> head injuries,


Did somebody say that? If they did, I missed it.

> And so on.


Uh huh. And so on is right. I don't hear anybody
making these arguments. All I hear is the sound of
you furiously building straw men and cutting cookies.

> You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
> out of context.


Here's where I really lose ya, even more than before
when I had already lost ya.
What 'scary number' are you talking about? If you're
talking about 662 fatalities in 2002, you gave that
number, and I don't find it particularly scary anyway,
do you? Or are you talking about when I said the
number for annual ER visits was actually just 5% of what
Tom Kunich posted previously? That it???

> Don't complain when I use comparisons to put it into
> context.


As soon as you stop making **** up, I will stop
calling you on it.


> 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.


Most Americans think driving is safe. Therefore, driving
is safe. Hard as it is to believe, that REALLY IS your
argument.

> Cycling is as safe, by the metrics described above.


Okay...
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context.


You make-a me laugh. Every time I put your numbers
in context, you have a royal freakout.

> If someone says
> bicycling is dangerous because of it's ER visits,


Nobody has said that in this thread, not that I've
read anyway. But that seems to be your most favored
style of 'discourse,' answering arguments that
haven't even been made. Never mind what somebody
actually says, out come the cookie cutter responses.

This army of helmet promoters
and the 'bike danger team' you describe don't
exist around rbwhatever as far as I can tell. So
I suggest you will have more success (and more fun
too perhaps) if you try discussing the issue(s) with the
people who are here, who also know a great deal about it,
and are eager for a good discussion, instead of arguing
against people who aren't even here, and who are highly
unlikely to read any of this, ever.

>I compare with ER
> visits from other activities.


You sure do.

> When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.


Really? On the surface, your sofa ER thing
makes cycling look not so bad. But to me, because I
know a little about the value of comparing
activities on a per-activity-hour basis, it makes
cycling look kinda bad actually. I wonder: why does
Frank want to make cycling look so dangerous? Does
it make him feel macho to make cycling look dangerous?

> When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its fatality count (as you just did)


Whoa doggy!!! You wish I said that. What I said was
that it's ludicrous to compare an activity that has
700 or so deaths every year and some unkown tens of
thousands of serious injuries associated with it to
an activity which has virtually none of these things.
That's what I said, that's what I am saying.

>I compare with the fatality counts from other
> activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.


Compared to other forms of traffic, you mean?
I notice you really don't like the idea of comparing
basketball and cycling in terms of fatalies. I agree
that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
rate to driving or walking near traffic, although
it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
that rate of injury is much higher for cycling. But
how much should we care about this? because as
you will be quick to point out the majority of these
injuries are fairly inconsequential(ER visits being
a distinct subset within total injuries, comprising
just 10-20% of total injuries). We already saw the
number for annual ER visits, we wouldn't want to
give it again as it sends Frank into a tizzy.

> When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its number of serious
> head injuries,


Did somebody say that? If they did, I missed it.

> And so on.


Uh huh. And so on is right. I don't hear anybody
making these arguments. All I hear is the sound of
you furiously building straw men and cutting cookies.

> You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
> out of context.


Here's where I really lose ya, even more than before
when I had already lost ya.
What 'scary number' are you talking about? If you're
talking about 662 fatalities in 2002, you gave that
number, and I don't find it particularly scary anyway,
do you? Or are you talking about when I said the
number for annual ER visits was actually just 5% of what
Tom Kunich posted previously? That it???

> Don't complain when I use comparisons to put it into
> context.


As soon as you stop making **** up, I will stop
calling you on it.


> 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.


Most Americans think driving is safe. Therefore, driving
is safe. Hard as it is to believe, that REALLY IS your
argument.

> Cycling is as safe, by the metrics described above.


Okay...
 
An anonymous bike messenger wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context.

>
> You make-a me laugh. Every time I put your numbers
> in context, you have a royal freakout.


If you define "freakout" as going to my references and giving
comparative numbers, maybe that's true - but to me, it seems kind of
dry for a "freakout."

>
> > When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its fatality count (as you just did)

>
> Whoa doggy!!! You wish I said that. What I said was
> that it's ludicrous to compare an activity that has
> 700 or so deaths every year and some unkown tens of
> thousands of serious injuries associated with it to
> an activity which has virtually none of these things.
> That's what I said, that's what I am saying.


What you said was, and I quote:

" 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. "

IOW, in your continuing effort to prove that cycling is dangerous, you
mentioned your approximation for the fatality count for cyclists since
"the early 1970s."

If you don't think fatality count is a good way to determine danger,
I'd suggest you stop bringing it up.


>
> >I compare with the fatality counts from other
> > activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.

>
> Compared to other forms of traffic, you mean?


Yes, compared to being a pedestrian, a motorist or a motorcyclist. I
don't doubt that there are fewer basketball fatalities. But you can't
possibly doubt that there are many more pedestrian fatalities and many
more motoring fatalities. So if you use fatality counts to "prove"
cycling is dangerous, you'll have to admit walking anywhere around
traffic is FAR more dangerous. Driving is even worse.


> I notice you really don't like the idea of comparing
> basketball and cycling in terms of fatalies.


I really don't mind. I've never heard anyone say "Cycling is obviously
very dangerous, since it causes more fatalities than basketball."
Granted, you seem to be implying that, but even you know it's too silly
to state explicitly.

> I agree
> that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> rate to driving or walking near traffic,


Ah! Progress!

> although
> it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
> that rate of injury is much higher for cycling.


More accurately, the rate of minor injury. (There's a lot of deja vu
around here.)

> But
> how much should we care about this? because as
> you will be quick to point out the majority of these
> injuries are fairly inconsequential(ER visits being
> a distinct subset within total injuries, comprising
> just 10-20% of total injuries).


Indeed. More progress!

> We already saw the
> number for annual ER visits, we wouldn't want to
> give it again as it sends Frank into a tizzy.


No tizzy. I'm quite calm. I just give comparative numbers. If you
don't want to see the easy rebuttals by comparisons, don't give numbers
you can't defend.


>
> > You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
> > out of context.

>
> Here's where I really lose ya, even more than before
> when I had already lost ya.
> What 'scary number' are you talking about?


It's quoted above. You had to include all fatalities since "the early
1970s" to get a number scary enough to satisfy you, remember?

> If you're
> talking about 662 fatalities in 2002, you gave that
> number, and I don't find it particularly scary anyway,
> do you?


Not at all, in a country of over 250 million, where 700,000 die of
heart disease each year, 500,000 die of cancer, 160,000 die of stroke,
and over 3000 die of choking. 662 fatalities is, by comparison, a
truly tiny number. IOW, bike fatalities are _very_ rare.


> Or are you talking about when I said the
> number for annual ER visits was actually just 5% of what
> Tom Kunich posted previously? That it???
>
> As soon as you stop making **** up, I will stop
> calling you on it.


:) I've _got_ to wonder why you forget what you posted so recently!

> > 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.

>
> Most Americans think driving is safe. Therefore, driving
> is safe. Hard as it is to believe, that REALLY IS your
> argument.


I'll try to patiently explain once more.

The word "dangerous" is not an absolute judgement. It's relative.
There is an infinite number of activities that could, in principle, be
ranked from most dangerous to least dangerous, in infinitesmal steps,
using different metrics. There is no official boundary line separating
the "safe" activities from the "dangerous" ones.

And you can't ask the average American "Is an activity that causes 0.5
fatalites per million hours 'dangerous'?" Americans, on average, are
not good enough with math to really understand the question, let alone
judge the answer.

So you're better off doing it by comparison with another common
activity. But what should you compare with? In America, essentially
everyone drives. Everyone knows death and serious injury is at least
possible in a car. But everyone rides in cars with very little fear.
IOW, everyone accepts the injury and fatality rate of driving as
acceptably safe.

Of course, my point in all this is that cycling is at least as safe as
motoring (yes, except for minor scrapes) if you look at serious data.

You can attempt to prove this wrong. You can come up with a sufficient
list of normal Americans who will say "Oh, I think driving is _very_
dangerous! But I load my family into my car and drive anyway, shaking
all the way!" Good luck on that one, BTW.

Now if you disagree, you might say exactly why. If it's just that
you're afraid of riding in cars, say so, and we'll understand your
mindset a lot better. If it's that you are dedicated to disparaging
cycling (as I am dedicated to promoting it) be honest about it. But
tell us why.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> A brief point. During my residency I was the first-call resident for
> facial trauma. Every patient suffering facial lacerations and fractures
> from a vehicular accident did NOT wear a seatbelt. Every
>single one.


Yup, medical staff reads accident reports.

(yes I have told this story previously) (stop reading now or you can
just keep it to yourself <g>)

>About 15 years ago, when my wife was still an RN working in the "neural ward", local trauma center hospital, I started out the door to go on a bike ride without my helmet (used only for racing). She said: "If you show up on the floor later on, and the accident report reads "no helmet", don't expect any sympathy from us!". Helmet, on. Haven't made the tour of the facilities yet; that's OK too. --TP
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Come on, JT--freds bought and wore Bell Bikers, Pro-tecs and MSR
> helmets when racers wore hairnets.
> I remember what a big deal it was when Tom Broznowski won the nats in
> '81 at Bear Mtn. wearing a Pro-tec.


Wayne Stetina whoring for Skid-lid, 1980? (collapsable helmet).

Some of us racing club riders wore the pudding bowls of the early-mid
eighties outside of racing ("training"), while the pros, where not
otherwise constrained, actually wore cotton caps or nothing, after we
rode that first warm race w/insulating attachment, and discovered the
"governor" effect. The idea being to "know" how far you could go with
the stupid (and they were awful) thing on.

Disparaging club riders (not quoted)? What's up with that? Something
wrong with being a fan? Their clothing choices should be limited
because...? Club jerseys should look like 1976 because...?

Earlier this year, prior too the Danskins (women's) Triathalon event
here in Austin, female ridership was way up. One pre-Danskins charity
ride for reference: very few J. Longo's attending. Ladies riding their
guts out, plenty (men, possibly fewer than women). Yup, "colorful"
jerseys abounding, some club jerseys, a few "pro" jerseys, helmets,
lots of shiny new bikes, some fancy gear. Challenging, hilly course on
slow roads, finishing price was high. Long loop well attended, short
loop repeated by at least a few. People having fun/looking for
self-improvement on their bikes. Lots of them. And raising some $$$ for
a cause, besides.

Attitude check. --TP
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> Come on, JT--freds bought and wore Bell Bikers, Pro-tecs and MSR
>>helmets when racers wore hairnets.
>> I remember what a big deal it was when Tom Broznowski won the nats in
>>'81 at Bear Mtn. wearing a Pro-tec.

>
>
> Wayne Stetina whoring for Skid-lid, 1980? (collapsable helmet).
>
> Some of us racing club riders wore the pudding bowls of the early-mid
> eighties outside of racing ("training"), while the pros, where not
> otherwise constrained, actually wore cotton caps or nothing, after we
> rode that first warm race w/insulating attachment, and discovered the
> "governor" effect. The idea being to "know" how far you could go with
> the stupid (and they were awful) thing on.
>
> Disparaging club riders (not quoted)? What's up with that? Something
> wrong with being a fan? Their clothing choices should be limited
> because...? Club jerseys should look like 1976 because...?
>
> Earlier this year, prior too the Danskins (women's) Triathalon event
> here in Austin, female ridership was way up. One pre-Danskins charity
> ride for reference: very few J. Longo's attending. Ladies riding their
> guts out, plenty (men, possibly fewer than women). Yup, "colorful"
> jerseys abounding, some club jerseys, a few "pro" jerseys, helmets,
> lots of shiny new bikes, some fancy gear. Challenging, hilly course on
> slow roads, finishing price was high. Long loop well attended, short
> loop repeated by at least a few. People having fun/looking for
> self-improvement on their bikes. Lots of them. And raising some $$$ for
> a cause, besides.
>
> Attitude check. --TP
>


As a longtime fred (I raced just one season) I salute you.
I didn't remember Stetina doing ads for Skid lids. Wow, were they
wierd--but I suppose they were better ventilated than the other "pudding
bowls" (a term I hadn't heard).
I never met Wayne, but I spoke to Dale once (I took a trip to the
Worlds in '86 and he was sitting behind me in the stands), and he seemed
like a true gentleman.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Tom Kunich:
>
>>which means that the increase in gasoline prices isn't
>>bothering Americans at all.

>
>
> It's bothering me - although, in support what I perceive as the real idea behind
> your statement, it hasn't reduced the number of miles I drive by very much.
>
> Having said that:
>
> 1) Last time I checked, bottled water at the local convenience store was still
> more expensive per gallon than gasoline.


At the convenience store maybe, but gallons of Crystal Geyser water sell
for about $1 in regular stores.

The most expensive fluids that are routinely purchased by consumers are
printer ink and vanilla extract.
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> As a longtime fred (I raced just one season) I salute you.


As a Cat III forever, 1982, I recognize that some people had their
real-world **** a whole lot more together <g>.

>I didn't remember Stetina doing ads for Skid lids.


He wore one at the start line, (IMS) Washington Park crit, 1980 Red
Zinger. I don't think he did it for free. Obviously a very ineffective
design, as the "petals" did not meet on the crown. Probably a skull
breaker. "Hope You Skid" Lid.

Bostick was in that race. Mike Neel won (again, ???). --TP
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>I noticed this also in France but that doesn't make driving 130 mph safe.


The Porches are doing 150-155. But the *really* scary part is the triple
tractor-trailers pulling out to pass at 45.

But in spite of all that, my nephew says that the German government claims a
lower per-mile fatality rate on it's freeways than we have in the USA. The
operative word, of course, is "claims"....

But when things happen, they seem to happen in a big way. Typical major crash
report on German TV seemed to go something like: "42 cars were involved,
between 30 and 50 people were killed; final number pending inventory of body
parts."


>> 2) The relationship of German highway infrastructure to USA highway
>> infrastructure is roughly that of a developed country to a third-world
>> country.

>
>Coming from California and mostly west of the Mississippi I can't put that
>into perspective. Certainly California freeways are much better designed


Doing most of my driving in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, I may be biased on that
one. In some trucker's survey or other I recall Pennsylvania roads being rated
down towards the very bottom.

In the Philadelphia area everybody knows what you're talking about when you cite
a "Merge-or-die" onramp. The news media people use that phrase with no
explanation required. Dunno if it's just a local expression...

When I'm driving at night here and it rains it's flat-out terrifying. White
lines just come and go more-or-less randomly depending on how grossly overdue
they are tb repainted or whether or not anybody bothered to put reflective
material in the paint.

Timed traffic lights? You bet. The five or six lights on route 30 through
Paoli, PA are timed so that if somebody goes about 57 mph they'll make every
light. Unfortunately, if they're going anywhere near the speed limit of 25,
they'll hit most of them.

Sometime about a year ago, they changed the timing on many of the local lights
so that side street traffic has to wait an ungodly long time at the red and
they've gone over to all lights being red for a few seconds at each change. The
net result is that people aren't furtively running yellow lights anymore;
instead they're running red lights with the hammer down and just blatantly
pulling out through red lights. I've never driven in Italy, but my suspicion
is that our automotive cultures are merging....

--
PeteCresswell
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>which means that the increase in gasoline prices isn't
>bothering Americans at all.


It's bothering me - although, in support what I perceive as the real idea behind
your statement, it hasn't reduced the number of miles I drive by very much.

Having said that:

1) Last time I checked, bottled water at the local convenience store was still
more expensive per gallon than gasoline. That was quite awhile ago.... but
I'll bet that if gas costs more, it isn't all that much.

2) If you figure 700% inflation since the mid fifties, gasoline is still only 32
cents per gallon. A more realistic comparison would be the number of hours
somebody had to work to buy 10 gallons of gas now and then - based on some sort
of common wage standard. Maybe somebody who knows can make that comparison.


With China and India continuing to develop fuel-intensive economies I see
$5.00/gallon gas sometime in the next five years. I think people's automobile
buying decisions are already being affected with prices over $2.00/gallon. At
$5.00, I think we will see a move towards high-MPG cars comparable to what's in
Europe today.
--
PeteCresswell
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:18:59 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 Aug 2005 07:45:18 -0700, [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.
> >>>
> >>>Most racers and club cyclists did. The former probably in

response to
> >>>racing rules, the latter because their accepted uniform was

designed to
> >>>look as much like a racer as possible.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bingo!
> >>
> >> JT

> >
> >
> > Come on, JT--freds bought and wore Bell Bikers, Pro-tecs and

MSR
> >helmets when racers wore hairnets.

>
> True.


Plenty of racers were wearing SkidLids and Bell Bikers by the end
of the '70s when I raced in NorCal, certainly not the majority,
though. By 1988, foam only helmets were popular and used by a
good portion of all the pack, at least in the Oregon District.
Maybe the big boys were helmetless, but a lot of the racers were
wearing helmets long before the USCF helmet rule. I was racing
when helmets were rare and later when they became mandatory, and
I do not recall any increase in risk-taking behavior. I think
STI had more effect on risk taking behavior because there was
less set-up before the corners -- no reaching down to feel for
the gear with friction shifting, and everyone could click and
jump out of the corner. -- Jay Beattie.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> No tizzy. I'm quite calm. I just give comparative numbers.


No, you don't just give comparative numbers (doing some extra
attributing here, thanks google):

(FK):
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.

(me):
Or they had a helmet sponsorship. I'd guess they were thinking about
landing on their wheels, failing which, head injuries would be a lesser
consideration than the usual clavicle, arm breaks, injured backs that
would impinge on their fun and/or income-producing abilities.

(FK):
Beyond those groups, it would have been only the most cautious
individuals who wore them, or made their kids wear them, for Just
Riding Along on bike paths or city streets. The kind of people who
would say "Sorry, Johnnie, you're not allowed to cross the street until

you're sixteen."

(me):
Tizzy of aspersions. "Picking up the ball and running with it". Helmet
hatred. Continues:

(FK):
ISTM that these would be the people who would rush Johnnie to the ER
when he fell and scraped his knee ("Flesh eating bacteria!!!"). And
these would be the people that the Thompson & Rivara team examined and
said "Hmm: He wore a helmet, and his injuries were only minor.
Obviously, the helmet protected him."

(snipped, continues with FK, MOS):
Those people were the lab rats that allowed T&R to say "85% reduction
in head injuries!!!" while carefully deemphasizing that almost all the
"head injuries" were minor scratches and such. Of course, they also
carefully omitted the equally justifiable "75% reduction in broken
legs."

(me):
Yup, all part of the Great Helmet Conspiracy: "helmet people" = rats,
complicit with The Deceivers.

Credit given for occasional lapses into mere exaggeration:

(FK):
And of course, that "85%" statement got MHLs instituted in many places.


(me):
Must have contributed, but there were certainly other forces at work.
For instance: insurance companies, state/local gov't, "public opinion"
as agents of social control ("let's cover that purple mohawk with a
helmet"), and the usual scapegoating of cyclists.

Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?
Where are the comparative numbers in that? Frank? You made a scurrilous
and totally uncalled-for remark. Are you ever going to respond directly
on this point?

And, more recently (no surprise, either!), when I pointed out that
she's become a strong intermediate-level horse rider in the years since
you tizzied about the helmet and knee/elbow pads, you pasted me with
"weird" because I "let" her (strongly supported, encouraged)
participate in an activity that you assumed to be "really" risky, with
no regard to any "numbers" on horse accidents/hour. Well, who cares
about any of that _reality_, as long as you had a chance to jab someone
who doesn't agree with you. Right, Mr. Tizzy?

Reviewing: Let's see, something I did or said doesn't square with your
"understanding", so there's something wrong with *me*. And tizzy tizzy,
here we go: my kids are gonna be social cripples if I have a bike
helmet rule, and I'm weird and cowardly ("overprotective", "womanly")
because I provided knee/elbow pads for my kids while they were first
learning to ride on two wheels.

Like I said, "full of ****". Helmet hatred, snarling. --TP
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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. Nobody thought that waking up with a cigarette
> > cough, and reaching for the pack and matches to take off
> > the edge was low risk behavior.

>
> I have a medical encyclopedia distrubuted by the Hudson Bay Corporation in
> Canada from about 1850 and there is an entire chapter on the cancers caused
> by smoking. So please don't say what you THINK it took to know about this
> subject.


What do I think it took to know about this subject?

>
> > I think that bicycle road racing and off-road bicycle
> > racing are perceptibly more risky than training rides. But
> > by how much I really do not know.

>
> Actually they are FAR safer than riding on the road. Injuries from racing on
> or off road are typically caused by grazing blows at rather low speeds.
> Fatalities in cycling are generally direct collisions with motor vehicles at
> very high speeds.


Thanks.

--
Michael Press
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > No tizzy. I'm quite calm. I just give comparative numbers.

>
> No, you don't just give comparative numbers (doing some extra
> attributing here, thanks google)


<sigh> Sorry, whatever your name was, but you're taking things out of
context. Slow down, calm down, re-read.

My statement about giving comparative numbers was in response to that
other anonymous poster, who said: " We already saw the
number for annual ER visits, we wouldn't want to
give it again as it sends Frank into a tizzy. "

Again, when he posts numbers for cycling's ER visits, I just give
comparative numbers for other activities' ER visits. And when I do,
cycling doesn't look so bad.

Since you didn't follow the conversation correctly, your extensive
proof that I also say other things was time wasted.


:
>
> (FK):
> In 1988, who wore bike helmets? ...
>
> ISTM that these would be the people who would rush Johnnie to the ER
> when he fell and scraped his knee ("Flesh eating bacteria!!!"). And
> these would be the people that the Thompson & Rivara team examined and
> said "Hmm: He wore a helmet, and his injuries were only minor.
> Obviously, the helmet protected him."
>
> Those people were the lab rats that allowed T&R to say "85% reduction
> in head injuries!!!" while carefully deemphasizing that almost all the
> "head injuries" were minor scratches and such. Of course, they also
> carefully omitted the equally justifiable "75% reduction in broken
> legs."
>
> (me):
> Yup, all part of the Great Helmet Conspiracy: "helmet people" = rats,
> complicit with The Deceivers.


Sorry, you're misunderstanding once again.

The "lab rat" reference was intended only to mean "subject of study."


> (FK):
> And of course, that "85%" statement got MHLs instituted in many places.
>
> (me):
> Must have contributed, but there were certainly other forces at work.


I testified before state legislators considering a MHL. Many of those
testifying in favor quoted the 85% figure. One woman testifying in
favor of the MHL, who is now a good friend of mine, said "Frank, 85%!
And it's so simple!"

If the commonly quoted figure were instead "Helmets prevent 25% of head
injuries" we wouldn't have nearly the level of helmet advocacy (and
mandates) that we now have. The 25% might still be an exaggeration,
but it wouldn't trigger the zeal that the ludicrous "85%" does.

> Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
> to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
> since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?


Um... a lie?

I did express amazement that people now use knee pads and elbow pads to
teach a kid to ride. And when I did that, it definitely wasn't
"venting spleen." Yes, you took it as an attack; but in my response, I
said "'m sorry you're offended, and I'm sorry you took my post as an
attack. It really wasn't. I find the idea of bicycling knee pads and
elbow pads amusing. I think it's interesting to learn how people
decide how 'safe' is safe enough."

Of course, things went downhill after that. But I'd say the spleen
flowed in a different direction than you claimed.

> Where are the comparative numbers in that? Frank? You made a scurrilous
> and totally uncalled-for remark. Are you ever going to respond directly
> on this point?
>
> And, more recently (no surprise, either!), when I pointed out that
> she's become a strong intermediate-level horse rider in the years since
> you tizzied about the helmet and knee/elbow pads, you pasted me with
> "weird" because I "let" her (strongly supported, encouraged)
> participate in an activity that you assumed to be "really" risky, with
> no regard to any "numbers" on horse accidents/hour. Well, who cares
> about any of that _reality_, as long as you had a chance to jab someone
> who doesn't agree with you. Right, Mr. Tizzy?
>
> Reviewing: Let's see, something I did or said doesn't square with your
> "understanding", so there's something wrong with *me*. And tizzy tizzy,
> here we go: my kids are gonna be social cripples if I have a bike
> helmet rule, and I'm weird and cowardly ("overprotective", "womanly")
> because I provided knee/elbow pads for my kids while they were first
> learning to ride on two wheels.
>
> Like I said, "full of ****". Helmet hatred, snarling. --TP


:) See what I mean about spleen? Good grief - calm down!

- Frank Krygowski
 
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plenty of racers were wearing SkidLids and Bell Bikers by the end
> of the '70s when I raced in NorCal, certainly not the majority,
> though.


Funny thing - there were two companies in the helmet business rather big
time - Bell and Skidlid. Bell funded the research that said in effect "Bell
works great and Skidlid is ****" and the USCF used the Bell standard.

> I think
> STI had more effect on risk taking behavior because there was
> less set-up before the corners -- no reaching down to feel for
> the gear with friction shifting, and everyone could click and
> jump out of the corner. -- Jay Beattie.


I didn't see the same thing. There used to be this milling around as
everyone was either feeling for the levers and taking their attention off
the road or actually looking down. I saw STI as making racing a great deal
safer. And if you race on the front you don't have to gear down and then
sprint out of the corners. You ride at max speed the whole way. As practice
on the races I would go up to a 90 degree turn and make the turn right on
the curb at 28 mph so that I could prove that any speed you could go on the
straight you could go around street corners designed for cars.
 
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> With China and India continuing to develop fuel-intensive economies I see
> $5.00/gallon gas sometime in the next five years. I think people's
> automobile
> buying decisions are already being affected with prices over $2.00/gallon.
> At
> $5.00, I think we will see a move towards high-MPG cars comparable to
> what's in
> Europe today.


I stopped in the Ford dealer the other day to check on a new Focus. He
looked at my pretty nice 2001 (bought 2000) ZX-2 and said that everyone was
trying to get small economy cars now and they can't give away SUV's. Ford
and Chevy are pretty heavy into big vehicles but the Japanese manufacturers
depend on the profits from SUV sales to survive.
 

Similar threads