On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:34:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/7/2022 11:28 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
> >>>> views on helmets.
> >>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
> >>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
> >>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
> >>>
> >>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
> >>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
> >>> in preventing injures.
> >>>
> >>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
> >>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
> >>>
> >>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
> >>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
> >>> course, evidence to prove it.
> >>
> >> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
> >>
> >> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
> >> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
> >
> > As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
> > means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
> > studies that show that YES, they do work.
> >
> > https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/
> >
> > I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
> > reality will have no effect.
> Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
> read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
> question at all?
>
> Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>
> Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
> problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
> of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
> unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.
>
> There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
> bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
> were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
> protection levels.)
>
> But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
> protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
> one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
> pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
> bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
> time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
> cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
> whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?
>
> Why not answer my question?
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer. About 7650 people are going to die of skin cancer in 2022.
https://www.aad.org/media/stats-skin-cancer
CDC says about 1000 bicyclists die every year.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
So maybe the smartest thing to do is restrict, prevent people from going outside and getting exposed to sunlight which is a contributor to skin cancer.. Skin cancer causes 7.6 more deaths than bicycles. We can implement the never go outside in the sunlight laws right after we implement the helmets 24 hours a day laws.

On 5/8/2022 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:34:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2022 11:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>>>>>> views on helmets.
>>>>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>>>>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>>>>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>>>>
>>>>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>>>>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>>>>> in preventing injures.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>>>>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>>>>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>>>>> course, evidence to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>>>
>>>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>>>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>>>
>>> As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
>>> means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
>>> studies that show that YES, they do work.
>>>
>>> https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/
>>>
>>> I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
>>> reality will have no effect.
>>
>> Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
>> read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
>> question at all?
>>
>> Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>
>> Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
>> problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
>> of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
>> unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.
>>
>> There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
>> bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
>> were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
>> protection levels.)
>>
>> But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
>> protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
>> one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
>> pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
>> bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
>> time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
>> cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
>> whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?
>>
>> Why not answer my question?
>
> Rather like Tommy. I provide data and you provide supposition and
> opinion.

If you want data, here's some data.
https://www.ohiobike.org/docs.ashx?id=662629

The data is given with citations. The article is several years old, so
some of the citations may be difficult to track down, but nothing much
has changed in the years since that was written.

If you disagree with parts of it, please be specific. And include your
own citations.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a variant of
> 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense of self-preservation
> would ever propose required helmets in motor vehicles.

This afternoon we had lunch with my son and daughter for mother’s day.

He was concerned that he had locked his keys in his day pack, in the
trunk of his car because when we were in the restaurant he couldn’t find
them. But no problem he said, he can unlock his car with his phone.

This led to a discussion of the various safety features in his car that
he bought last year. It has multiple collision avoidance features like
automatic braking if he gets too close to the car in front of him and
the car in front suddenly slams on the brakes. It has lane-departure
prevention if it senses that you're drifting into the next lane and your
turn signal is not on. It warns you, when you activate your turn signal
to change lanes, if there is a car in your blinds spot. It has nine
airbags, a collapsible steering column, safety glass, a padded
dashboard, and of course lap and shoulder belts. It has adaptive cruise
control that slows down if the car in front of you slows down, then goes
back to the preset speed when it’s safe to do so. This is not a fancy
luxury car either, it's a mid-range Hyundai Sonata.

Every time I here the ridiculous excuse of “well we don’t require
driving helmets so why should anyone where a bicycle helmet?” I know
that the person promoting that idea is really clueless or is trying to
promote some strange agenda. If a bicycle came with airbags then it
would be a different story. Of course there actually is an airbag for
cyclists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E82Gdy2_wbA.

On 5/8/2022 5:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>> (chomp)
>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>
>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>
>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>> reduce the risk
>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>> wearing seat
>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>
>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>
>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>> percent for
>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>
>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>
>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>> safety seats is
>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>> (numerical)
>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices.  The problem is if
>>>> they were
>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>> keeping them
>>>> alive, would they continue to use them?  My guess(tm)
>>>> would be half
>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>> of adequate
>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>> other half
>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>> taking risks
>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>
>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>> major accident
>>>> while wearing a helmet?  Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>> risk of
>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Motor-vehicle crash   1 in   101
>>>> Bicyclist             1 in 3,396
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>> not dying
>>>> from 50% to 100%.  It only improves it to:
>>>>   1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>> Current
>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>> dinner will be
>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>
>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>> without a
>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>> "bosses" when they
>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>
>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>> that is up
>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>> which probably
>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>
>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>> over to watch for a bit.
>>
>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>
>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>> while driving or exiting.
>>
>
> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a variant of
> 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense of self-preservation
> would ever propose required helmets in motor vehicles.

That's true. For the most part, helmet laws and intense helmet promotion
began by those who were not cyclists. They were able to gain popularity
in large part because cyclists were viewed as an 'out group'.

But unlike other 'out groups,' cyclists took up the cause en masse. It
was as if southern blacks had said "Make us sit in the back of the bus,
and don't let us use your water fountains." It was as if Germany's Jews
said "We get to wear yellow stars! They're for our own good!"

Sorry of those are offensive for anyone, but ISTM that the parallel is
quite close.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 3:12:58 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >> (chomp)
> >>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
> >>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
> >>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>
> >> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> >> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> >> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> >> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >>
> >> Same with child safety seats:
> >> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
> >> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
> >> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
> >>
> >>> It is a scam.
> >>
> >> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
> >> that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
> >> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
> >> informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
> >> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
> >> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
> >> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
> >> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
> >> is part of bicycle riding.
> >>
> >> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
> >> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
> >> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
> >> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
> >> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
> >> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
> >> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
> >> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
> >> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
> >>
> >>
> >> Notes drivel:
> >>
> >> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
> >>from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
> >> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
> >>
> >> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
> >> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
> >> cold if I search for more current numbers.
> >
> > Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
> > "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
> > come to visit have to wear "helmets".
> >
> > I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
> > above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
> > weighs a ton, or more (:-)
> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
> ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
> lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.
>
> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
> pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
> hard hat on his head.
>
> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
> really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
> driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
> regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

One theme I have always heard about guns is never ever put your finger on the trigger and point the gun at anything unless you want to kill it. Real gun, toy gun, whatever. Although maybe a finger gun is exempted. But Alec Baldwin is being sued by Fox News and 2nd Amendment lovers and Gun Rights nuts etc. because he accidentally killed someone on a movie set. Where one would expect all the prop guns to not be able to actually shoot and kill someone. And there would not ever be any real bullets allowed on set. One would expect that. So I can understand why the road crew guy would wear a helmet at the construction site at night.

On 5/8/2022 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> who was NOT wearing a helmet.

Wow. But don't apply that policy to the >99% of Americans who suffer
serious brain injury from non-bicycling events?

Again, it's astonishing and disgusting that bicyclists are willing to
persecute their fellow cyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 8:10 PM, sms wrote:
>
> This led to a discussion of the various safety features in his car that
> he bought last year. It has multiple collision avoidance features like
> automatic braking if he gets too close to the car in front of him and
> the car in front suddenly slams on the brakes. It has lane-departure
> prevention if it senses that you're drifting into the next lane and your
> turn signal is not on. It warns you, when you activate your turn signal
> to change lanes, if there is a car in your blinds spot. It has nine
> airbags, a collapsible steering column, safety glass, a padded
> dashboard, and of course lap and shoulder belts. It has adaptive cruise
> control that slows down if the car in front of you slows down, then goes
> back to the preset speed when it’s safe to do so. This is not a fancy
> luxury car either, it's a mid-range Hyundai Sonata.
>
> Every time I here the ridiculous excuse of “well we don’t require
> driving helmets so why should anyone where a bicycle helmet?” I know
> that the person promoting that idea is really clueless or is trying to
> promote some strange agenda. If a bicycle came with airbags then it
> would be a different story.
Scharf ignores the most relevant point: Every year in the U.S., the
in-car safety devices he praises fail to keep 35,000 people alive.
Perhaps a driving helmet might help. After all, they would not require
minimal weight or excellent ventilation. They could be quite robust, as
for motor sports.

Each year, fewer than 1000 bicyclist die. And as with my friend, many of
those who die were wearing helmets. The requirements for light weight
and ventilation limit them to only minimal protection. (Hell, read the
certification standards!)

It's nonsense to pretend that bicycling is so terribly dangerous as to
require helmets, and to pretend that bike helmets are so powerfully
protective as to justify their intense promotion.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>> >>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> >>>>> (chomp)
>> >>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>> >>>>>> helmet failed even
>> >>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>> >>>>>> helmets are SO
>> >>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> >>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>> >>>>> reduce the risk
>> >>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> >>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>> >>>>> wearing seat
>> >>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>> >>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>> >>>>> percent for
>> >>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> It is a scam.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>> >>>>> safety seats is
>> >>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>> >>>>> (numerical)
>> >>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>> >>>>> they were
>> >>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>> >>>>> keeping them
>> >>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>> >>>>> would be half
>> >>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>> >>>>> of adequate
>> >>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>> >>>>> other half
>> >>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>> >>>>> taking risks
>> >>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>> >>>>> NHTSA that there
>> >>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>> >>>>> major accident
>> >>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>> >>>>> risk of
>> >>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>> >>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>> >>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>> >>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>> >>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Notes drivel:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>> >>>>> not dying
>> >>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>> >>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>> >>>>> Current
>> >>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>> >>>>> dinner will be
>> >>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>> >>>> without a
>> >>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>> >>>> "bosses" when they
>> >>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>> >>>> that is up
>> >>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>> >>>> which probably
>> >>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>> >>>
>> >>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>> >>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>> >>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>> >>> over to watch for a bit.
>> >>>
>> >>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>> >>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>> >>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>> >>>
>> >>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>> >>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>> >>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>> >>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>> >>> while driving or exiting.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>> >> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>> >> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>> >> motor vehicles.
>> >
>> > No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>> > drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>> > was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>> > a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>> > your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>> >
>> > Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>> > Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>> > who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>> >
>> > As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>> > obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>> > any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>> >
>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>> your life:
>>
>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>
>Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.

Lets see... you post a reference to a U.S. organization the "
Occupational Safety and Health Administration", a U.S. Government
agency, and then you talk about "lives in a dictatorship".

Now I know that your brain "misses a beat" now and then but U.S.
Government and Dictatorship?

I wonder whether you are referring to the rather strict anti-Covid
rules here? I mean, wear a mask, don't get close to anyone, have your
temperature taken before entering a government building, etc.?

On Sun, 08 May 2022 18:27:17 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>>> percent for
>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>>> they were
>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>>> keeping them
>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>>> would be half
>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>>> of adequate
>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>>> other half
>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>>> taking risks
>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>>> major accident
>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>>> not dying
>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>>> Current
>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>>> without a
>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>>
>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>>> that is up
>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>>> which probably
>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>>
>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>>
>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>>
>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>>> motor vehicles.
>>
>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>>
>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>>
>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>>
>
>You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>your life:
>
>https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/

Well, that is your government in action isn't. The U.S. Congress (you
know those fellows you select to rule over you) made a law, way back
in 1970, "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration act",
which resulted in the establishment of an organization to manage and
enforce the new regulations.

As for sitting in offices... well statistics show that OSHA made some
151,446 inspection in the 5 years 2016 - 2020, that is what? 82 a day
(if they work Sundays and holidays)?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/8/2022 7:33 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>> (chomp)
>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>
>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
>> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
>> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
>> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
>>
>> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
>> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
>> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
>> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
>> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
>> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
>> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
>>
>> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
>> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
>> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
>> cost to the car.
>
> Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.
Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
a percent of the cost of a car.
Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
(from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
law violations.)
>> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
>
> Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.
Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
wearing a helmet backwards.
>> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
>> replacement,
>
> Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
arm to my torso as I fell.
> I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
- showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
"You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
marketing strategy.
>> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
>
> Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
hassle.
And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.
BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.
>> and their
>> effectiveness is questionable at best.
>
> OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.
It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
protective value.
>> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
>>
>
> Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.
Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!
Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
marketing myth.

Click here to read the complete article

On Sun, 8 May 2022 17:10:12 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a variant of
>> 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense of self-preservation
>> would ever propose required helmets in motor vehicles.
>
>This afternoon we had lunch with my son and daughter for mother’s day.
>
>He was concerned that he had locked his keys in his day pack, in the
>trunk of his car because when we were in the restaurant he couldn’t find
>them. But no problem he said, he can unlock his car with his phone.
>
>This led to a discussion of the various safety features in his car that
>he bought last year. It has multiple collision avoidance features like
>automatic braking if he gets too close to the car in front of him and
>the car in front suddenly slams on the brakes. It has lane-departure
>prevention if it senses that you're drifting into the next lane and your
>turn signal is not on. It warns you, when you activate your turn signal
>to change lanes, if there is a car in your blinds spot. It has nine
>airbags, a collapsible steering column, safety glass, a padded
>dashboard, and of course lap and shoulder belts. It has adaptive cruise
>control that slows down if the car in front of you slows down, then goes
>back to the preset speed when it’s safe to do so. This is not a fancy
>luxury car either, it's a mid-range Hyundai Sonata.
>
>Every time I here the ridiculous excuse of “well we don’t require
>driving helmets so why should anyone where a bicycle helmet?” I know
>that the person promoting that idea is really clueless or is trying to
>promote some strange agenda. If a bicycle came with airbags then it
>would be a different story. Of course there actually is an airbag for
>cyclists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E82Gdy2_wbA.

Just curious,
You use the term " lap and shoulder belts". Are you referring to the
old 3 way belts and the "s" indicates that there is several belts or
is this some new two belt system?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>>>> percent for
>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>>>> they were
>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>>>> keeping them
>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>>>> would be half
>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>>>> of adequate
>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>>>> other half
>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>>>> taking risks
>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>>>> major accident
>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>>>> not dying
>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>>>> Current
>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>>>> without a
>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>>>> that is up
>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>>>> which probably
>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>>>> motor vehicles.
>>>
>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>>>
>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>>>
>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>> your life:
>>
>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>
> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.

> "lives in a dictatorship"

pot, kettle, black.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/8/2022 8:03 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:34:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/7/2022 11:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>>>>>> views on helmets.
>>>>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>>>>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>>>>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>>>>
>>>>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>>>>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>>>>> in preventing injures.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>>>>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>>>>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>>>>> course, evidence to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>>>
>>>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>>>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>>>
>>> As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
>>> means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
>>> studies that show that YES, they do work.
>>>
>>> https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/
>>>
>>> I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
>>> reality will have no effect.
>> Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
>> read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
>> question at all?
>>
>> Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>
>> Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
>> problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
>> of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
>> unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.
>>
>> There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
>> bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
>> were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
>> protection levels.)
>>
>> But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
>> protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
>> one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
>> pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
>> bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
>> time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
>> cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
>> whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?
>>
>> Why not answer my question?
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer. About 7650 people are going to die of skin cancer in 2022.
> https://www.aad.org/media/stats-skin-cancer
> CDC says about 1000 bicyclists die every year.
> https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
> So maybe the smartest thing to do is restrict, prevent people from going outside and getting exposed to sunlight which is a contributor to skin cancer. Skin cancer causes 7.6 more deaths than bicycles. We can implement the never go outside in the sunlight laws right after we implement the helmets 24 hours a day laws.

You're venturing into "benefits vs. detriments" territory. Welcome!

Check the references I gave in the PDF I linked for John. At that time,
I'd found four studies that attempted to compare bicycling's risks with
its benefits. All found the benefits far outweighed the risks. Since
then I've found at least one more such study, perhaps two, with the same
general conclusion.

See if you can find a study that disagrees. I doubt you will.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 7:17 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 3:12:58 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>> (chomp)
>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>
>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>
>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>
>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>
>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>
>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
>>> >from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>
>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>
>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>
>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
>> ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
>> lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.
>>
>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
>> pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
>> hard hat on his head.
>>
>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
>> really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
>> driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
>> regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> One theme I have always heard about guns is never ever put your finger on the trigger and point the gun at anything unless you want to kill it. Real gun, toy gun, whatever. Although maybe a finger gun is exempted. But Alec Baldwin is being sued by Fox News and 2nd Amendment lovers and Gun Rights nuts etc. because he accidentally killed someone on a movie set. Where one would expect all the prop guns to not be able to actually shoot and kill someone. And there would not ever be any real bullets allowed on set. One would expect that. So I can understand why the road crew guy would wear a helmet at the construction site at night.
>

I don't know but it's a very complex situation.

There are longstanding contractual obligations for armorers
and handling of firearms on movie sets which were not
properly observed. The live ammo should not have even been
on the set. It was from another production and the owner had
tried to retrieve it but Mr Baldwin, producer in both
ventures told him to 'write it off'. Speaking of which the
producer (Mr Baldwin) has an obligation and liability for
hiring and supervision of the armorer (sketchy all around in
this case).

It was an 'accident' about as much as a drunken texter
plowing through red light into a peloton is an 'accident'.

p.s. SpelChek doesn't like 'peloton'. Harumph.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 8 May 2022 17:17:44 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 3:12:58 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>> >>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> >> (chomp)
>> >>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>> >>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>> >>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>> >>
>> >> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> >> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> >> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>> >> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> >> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>> >> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>> >>
>> >> Same with child safety seats:
>> >> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>> >> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
>> >> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>> >>
>> >>> It is a scam.
>> >>
>> >> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
>> >> that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
>> >> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
>> >> informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
>> >> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
>> >> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
>> >> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
>> >> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
>> >> is part of bicycle riding.
>> >>
>> >> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
>> >> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
>> >> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
>> >> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>> >> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>> >> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>> >> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>> >> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>> >> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Notes drivel:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
>> >>from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>> >> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>> >>
>> >> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
>> >> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
>> >> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>> >
>> > Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
>> > "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
>> > come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>> >
>> > I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
>> > above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
>> > weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
>> ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
>> lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.
>>
>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
>> pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
>> hard hat on his head.
>>
>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
>> really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
>> driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
>> regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>One theme I have always heard about guns is never ever put your finger on the trigger and point the gun at anything unless you want to kill it. Real gun, toy gun, whatever. Although maybe a finger gun is exempted. But Alec Baldwin is being sued by Fox News and 2nd Amendment lovers and Gun Rights nuts etc. because he accidentally killed someone on a movie set. Where one would expect all the prop guns to not be able to actually shoot and kill someone. And there would not ever be any real bullets allowed on set. One would expect that. So I can understand why the road crew guy would wear a helmet at the construction site at night.

Well disregarding the shootings, I suspect that it isn't a matter of
"wearing a helmet at the construction site after night", it is a
matter of "wearing a helmet while at the construction site".

Generally safety rules are made to be all encompassing to avoid
arguments such as Frank is making at the moment about bike helmets.
It seems perfectly logical to argue that one shouldn't have to wear a
hard at on a construction site... well, until someone does get hurt
and their survivors sue the company for Umpteen Million Dollars
alleging that you should have made their Dearly Departed wear a hard
hat.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 7:33 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >>> (chomp)
> >>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
> >>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
> >>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>>
> >>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> >>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> >>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> >>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
> >> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
> >> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
> >> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
> >>
> >> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
> >> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
> >> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
> >> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
> >> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
> >> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
> >> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
> >>
> >> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
> >> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
> >> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
> >> cost to the car.
> >
> > Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.
> Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
> your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
> seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
> line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
> price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
> a percent of the cost of a car.

Lets add in the cost of the airbags too. That will get the total safety cost closer to my 0.36% for Trek Bontrager. Is 36 hundredths close to a few hundredths?

>
> Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
> (from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
> rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
> afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
> could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
> been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
> law violations.)

I am sure I have seen many stories about police or maybe Walmart giving away free bike helmets. And I think I have heard about free bike giveaways like your club did, also giving a free helmet with the bike. May I suggest doing that in the future?

> >> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
> >
> > Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
> Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
> helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
> volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
> all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.

I am well aware that sometimes even the simplest things are the most complicated. I still consider adjusting a helmet to be pretty simple. If you are going to bother wearing a helmet, adjust the sizing correctly.

>
> Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
> village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
> least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
> testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
> promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
> wearing a helmet backwards.
> >> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> >> replacement,
> >
> > Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
> Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
> tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
> walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
> left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
> I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
> arm to my torso as I fell.

Strange things can occur. Your helmet broke when in 99.99999999999999% of the time it should not have. Kind of like your helmeted friend falling over and dying with a helmet on his head. But I have had helmets that did not break from everyday usage. And ones that did break when crashed. As you would expect. So from my experience, helmets are not fragile. And I am sure they undergo some kind of testing that hits them to see if they break. They pass that test.

An example. Counterpoint. Analogy. Drinking glasses made out of glass. They are fragile. Drop them on the floor and you can expect them to break. But sometimes they do not break. Or wash them by hand in the metal sink. Probably won't break even though you are bumping them into the metal sink and the pots and pans in the sink. I use glass drinking glasses and do not break them. I use helmets and do not break them.

> > I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
> And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
> Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
> - showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
>
> "You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
> marketing strategy.

I have never bought into the buy a new helmet every year mythology. I keep mine for many years. Only buy a new one when I see a new one on sale and the old one is getting kind of worn out from usage and is smelling too much.. Or its adjustment, tightening system has gotten to loose. I am all for keeping your old helmet and using it for a long time. But if you do get in a crash, maybe then reconsider whether you need a new one to replace the now crushed, squished one.

> >> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
> >
> > Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
> Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
> restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
> people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
> when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
> U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
> hassle.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 20:28:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 7:17 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 3:12:58 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
>>>> >from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>
>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
>>> ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
>>> lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.
>>>
>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
>>> pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
>>> hard hat on his head.
>>>
>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
>>> really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
>>> driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
>>> regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> One theme I have always heard about guns is never ever put your finger on the trigger and point the gun at anything unless you want to kill it. Real gun, toy gun, whatever. Although maybe a finger gun is exempted. But Alec Baldwin is being sued by Fox News and 2nd Amendment lovers and Gun Rights nuts etc. because he accidentally killed someone on a movie set. Where one would expect all the prop guns to not be able to actually shoot and kill someone. And there would not ever be any real bullets allowed on set. One would expect that. So I can understand why the road crew guy would wear a helmet at the construction site at night.
>>
>
>I don't know but it's a very complex situation.
>
>There are longstanding contractual obligations for armorers
>and handling of firearms on movie sets which were not
>properly observed. The live ammo should not have even been
>on the set. It was from another production and the owner had
>tried to retrieve it but Mr Baldwin, producer in both
>ventures told him to 'write it off'. Speaking of which the
>producer (Mr Baldwin) has an obligation and liability for
>hiring and supervision of the armorer (sketchy all around in
>this case).
>
>It was an 'accident' about as much as a drunken texter
>plowing through red light into a peloton is an 'accident'.
>
>p.s. SpelChek doesn't like 'peloton'. Harumph.

My spelling checker translates it to "kiloton" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 20:18:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>>>>> percent for
>>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>>>>> they were
>>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>>>>> keeping them
>>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>>>>> would be half
>>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>>>>> of adequate
>>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>>>>> other half
>>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>>>>> taking risks
>>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>>>>> major accident
>>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>>>>> not dying
>>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>>>>> Current
>>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>>>>> without a
>>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>>>>> that is up
>>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>>>>> which probably
>>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>>>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>>>>> motor vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>>>>
>>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>>>>
>>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>>> your life:
>>>
>>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>>
>> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
>
>
>> "lives in a dictatorship"
>
>pot, kettle, black.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>>> serious injury.
>
> If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
> otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
> fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.
>
> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
>
> And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
> will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
> injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
> involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.
>
>
>
On the whole looking at a population level and noting for example the death
rates in London over the years plus the Dutch who seem to at a population
be safer than Uk, with very low helmet use rates.

Would suggest that for populations helmets are not of any use.

For individuals its seems probable that they can, though the degree is
debatable and probably depends on many other factors. Let alone the
unpredictable nature of Traumatic brain injury’s mainly due to our lack of
understanding due to fairly little research, historically.

In short Helmets are a distraction, infrastructure works, if done well.

Roger Merriman

On 5/8/2022 9:54 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 7:33 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
>>>> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
>>>> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
>>>> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
>>>>
>>>> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
>>>> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
>>>> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
>>>> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
>>>> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
>>>> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
>>>> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
>>>> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
>>>> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
>>>> cost to the car.
>>>
>>> Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $
50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.
>> Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
>> your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
>> seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
>> line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
>> price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
>> a percent of the cost of a car.
>
> Lets add in the cost of the airbags too. That will get the total safety cost closer to my 0.36% for Trek Bontrager. Is 36 hundredths close to a few hundredths?
>
>
>
>>
>> Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
>> (from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
>> rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
>> afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
>> could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
>> been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
>> law violations.)
>
> I am sure I have seen many stories about police or maybe Walmart giving away free bike helmets. And I think I have heard about free bike giveaways like your club did, also giving a free helmet with the bike. May I suggest doing that in the future?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
>>>
>>> Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
>> Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
>> helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
>> volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
>> all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.
>
> I am well aware that sometimes even the simplest things are the most complicated. I still consider adjusting a helmet to be pretty simple. If you are going to bother wearing a helmet, adjust the sizing correctly.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
>> village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
>> least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
>> testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
>> promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
>> wearing a helmet backwards.
>>>> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
>>>> replacement,
>>>
>>> Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
>> Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
>> tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
>> walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
>> left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
>> I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
>> arm to my torso as I fell.
>
> Strange things can occur. Your helmet broke when in 99.99999999999999% of the time it should not have. Kind of like your helmeted friend falling over and dying with a helmet on his head. But I have had helmets that did not break from everyday usage. And ones that did break when crashed. As you would expect. So from my experience, helmets are not fragile. And I am sure they undergo some kind of testing that hits them to see if they break. They pass that test.
>
> An example. Counterpoint. Analogy. Drinking glasses made out of glass. They are fragile. Drop them on the floor and you can expect them to break. But sometimes they do not break. Or wash them by hand in the metal sink. Probably won't break even though you are bumping them into the metal sink and the pots and pans in the sink. I use glass drinking glasses and do not break them. I use helmets and do not break them.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
>> And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
>> Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
>> - showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
>>
>> "You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
>> marketing strategy.
>
> I have never bought into the buy a new helmet every year mythology. I keep mine for many years. Only buy a new one when I see a new one on sale and the old one is getting kind of worn out from usage and is smelling too much. Or its adjustment, tightening system has gotten to loose. I am all for keeping your old helmet and using it for a long time. But if you do get in a crash, maybe then reconsider whether you need a new one to replace the now crushed, squished one.
>
>
>
>
>>>> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
>>>
>>> Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
>> Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
>> restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
>> people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
>> when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
>> U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
>> hassle.
>
> I have used the cable lock through the vents on the helmet trick many times. It works. And its very easy. Other times I just wrap the strap around the downtube and front wheel. So its unlocked. But I've never had one stolen.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
>> across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
>> room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
>> how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
>> wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.
>
> When I traveled overseas with my full size non folding bike, I packed the helmet in the same cardboard box as the bike. Or you could pack it into your regular luggage. Like I did with my panniers. A duffel bag or box with all the other gear. I think I used my handlebar bag as a carryon bag. How to carry my helmet on a flight is down near the very bottom of my worries and troubles.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
>> distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.
>>>> and their
>>>> effectiveness is questionable at best.
>>>
>>> OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.
>> It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
>> protective value.
>
> No. Very wrong. My experience has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the helmet's protective value. I am reminded of that protective value every single day of my life. Or every single day since age 12. When I was 12, riding my bike to 7th grade. I was involved in a car bike crash. After regaining consciousness in the hospital, I discovered a lot of stiches in my forehead. A scar. A big scar developed from that. And every single day since then, when I look in a mirror, or see a picture of myself, I see what not wearing a helmet can cause. A large scar on my forehead. If I had been wearing a helmet that day over four decades ago, I would not have a daily reminder of how protective a helmet can be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.
>> Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
>> willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
>> people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
>> happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
>> perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!
>
> Yes, more people die from tripping and hitting their head while walking or slipping in the bathtub than dies from bicycle crashes. All are bad. And it makes sense to emphasize making bathtubs and walking more safe. And bicycling too. We have grab handles in bathtubs for some old people. And we make steps a uniform size so people won't trip as easily on stairs. And we try to make bicyclists wear helmets. But still more bathtub and stair tripping, slipping deaths. Just because we can't stop the top killers, does not mean we should not stop the small killers. Its called low hanging fruit. Take the small gains you can even if the big gain remains out of reach. I do not see anything wrong with this. If we save a life with a helmet on a bicyclist head, then that is good. Celebrate. And mourn for the bathtub slipper death. But be happy you saved the bicycle death with a helmet.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
>> bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
>> marketing myth.
>>> Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow.
>> As I've said, I've fallen quite a few times back when I was doing
>> moderately adventurous mountain biking. Not high speed stuff; more like
>> narrow woodland trails, but some scary stuff in old strip mining
>> territories. I was never injured.
>>
>> I've suffered exactly two moving on-road falls, plus IIRC just one
>> stationary lost-my-balance topple. My first moving fall was biking home
>> after work, descending a super-steep (probably 15%) city street in
>> winter at walking pace, when I turned to avoid broken glass and slipped
>> on gravel. I scraped my knee and tore my jacket. The second was when the
>> front forks of our tandem suddenly snapped off on hitting a pothole at
>> 10 mph. I hurt my shoulder.
>>
>> I've never fallen because of a car crash, never slid out at speed on a
>> turn, never run into another cyclist, never been taken down by a dog,
>
> A dog did sort of take me out. I think 7th or 8th grade. Biking home from school. Junior high. Dog ran out of the yard and ran sideways into my rear wheel. His body slammed into my rear wheel sideways. Bent the rear wheel way out of shape. Tacoed it.
>
>
>
>
>
>> etc. I've ridden avidly as an adult since 1973.
>>
>> I certainly had some falls as a kid, but I honestly remember the details
>> of only one. It has a helmet moral. Basically, if I'd have worn a helmet
>> it would certainly have been smashed, and many people would certainly
>> have said "It saved your life." But I wore no helmet, I said "Wow, that
>> hurt!" and I got up and continued delivering papers by bike.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> >>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >>>>>>> (chomp)
> >>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
> >>>>>>>> helmet failed even
> >>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
> >>>>>>>> helmets are SO
> >>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
> >>>>>>> reduce the risk
> >>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> >>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
> >>>>>>> wearing seat
> >>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
> >>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
> >>>>>>> percent for
> >>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is a scam.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
> >>>>>>> safety seats is
> >>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
> >>>>>>> (numerical)
> >>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
> >>>>>>> they were
> >>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
> >>>>>>> keeping them
> >>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
> >>>>>>> would be half
> >>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
> >>>>>>> of adequate
> >>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
> >>>>>>> other half
> >>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
> >>>>>>> taking risks
> >>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
> >>>>>>> NHTSA that there
> >>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
> >>>>>>> major accident
> >>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
> >>>>>>> risk of
> >>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
> >>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
> >>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
> >>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
> >>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Notes drivel:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
> >>>>>>> not dying
> >>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
> >>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
> >>>>>>> Current
> >>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
> >>>>>>> dinner will be
> >>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
> >>>>>> without a
> >>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
> >>>>>> "bosses" when they
> >>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
> >>>>>> that is up
> >>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
> >>>>>> which probably
> >>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
> >>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
> >>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
> >>>>> over to watch for a bit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
> >>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
> >>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
> >>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
> >>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
> >>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
> >>>>> while driving or exiting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
> >>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
> >>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
> >>>> motor vehicles.
> >>>
> >>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
> >>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
> >>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
> >>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
> >>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> >>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> >>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
> >>>
> >>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
> >>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
> >>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
> >>>
> >> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
> >> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
> >> your life:
> >>
> >> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
> >
> > Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
> > "lives in a dictatorship"
>
> pot, kettle, black.

On 5/9/2022 4:41 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>>>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>>>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>>>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>>>> serious injury.
>>
>> If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
>> otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
>> fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.
>>
>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
>>
>> And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
>> will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
>> injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
>> involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.
>>
>>
>>
> On the whole looking at a population level and noting for example the death
> rates in London over the years plus the Dutch who seem to at a population
> be safer than Uk, with very low helmet use rates.
>
> Would suggest that for populations helmets are not of any use.

Well of course that's ridiculous. We all know the reason why the Dutch
numbers are so low, it's because they've invested so heavily in bicycle
infrastructure, as well as the fact that when you have more cyclists on
the road it improves safety for all of them.

Read <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm#>
and
<https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure>
and
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753515001472> and
file them under "more facts and statistics that Frank doesn't like."

The abstract of the last citation is succinct and cuts to the core of
the issue: "Factors found to contribute to this improvement include the
establishment of a road hierarchy with large traffic-calmed areas where
through traffic is kept out. A heavily used freeway network shifts motor
vehicles from streets with high cycling levels. This reduces exposure to
high-speed motor vehicles. Separated bicycle paths and intersection
treatments decrease the likelihood of bicycle–motor vehicle crashes. The
high amount of bicycle use increases safety as a higher bicycle modal
share corresponds with a lower share of driving and greater awareness of
cyclists among drivers. Low cycling speed was also found to contribute
to the high level of cycling safety in the Netherlands." All of these go
against the precepts of the discredited "vehicular cycling" philosophy,
OMG, "separated bicycle paths!," what were the Dutch thinking?!

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:39:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 9:54 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2022 7:33 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >>>>> (chomp)
> >>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
> >>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
> >>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> >>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> >>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> >>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >>>> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
> >>>> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
> >>>> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
> >>>> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
> >>>>
> >>>> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
> >>>> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
> >>>> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
> >>>> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
> >>>> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
> >>>> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
> >>>> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
> >>>> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
> >>>> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
> >>>> cost to the car.
> >>>
> >>> Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $
> 50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.
> >> Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
> >> your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
> >> seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
> >> line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
> >> price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
> >> a percent of the cost of a car.
> >
> > Lets add in the cost of the airbags too. That will get the total safety cost closer to my 0.36% for Trek Bontrager. Is 36 hundredths close to a few hundredths?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
> >> (from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
> >> rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
> >> afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
> >> could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
> >> been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
> >> law violations.)
> >
> > I am sure I have seen many stories about police or maybe Walmart giving away free bike helmets. And I think I have heard about free bike giveaways like your club did, also giving a free helmet with the bike. May I suggest doing that in the future?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
> >>>
> >>> Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
> >> Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
> >> helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
> >> volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
> >> all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.
> >
> > I am well aware that sometimes even the simplest things are the most complicated. I still consider adjusting a helmet to be pretty simple. If you are going to bother wearing a helmet, adjust the sizing correctly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
> >> village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
> >> least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
> >> testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
> >> promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
> >> wearing a helmet backwards.
> >>>> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> >>>> replacement,
> >>>
> >>> Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
> >> Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
> >> tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
> >> walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
> >> left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
> >> I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
> >> arm to my torso as I fell.
> >
> > Strange things can occur. Your helmet broke when in 99.99999999999999% of the time it should not have. Kind of like your helmeted friend falling over and dying with a helmet on his head. But I have had helmets that did not break from everyday usage. And ones that did break when crashed. As you would expect. So from my experience, helmets are not fragile. And I am sure they undergo some kind of testing that hits them to see if they break. They pass that test.
> >
> > An example. Counterpoint. Analogy. Drinking glasses made out of glass. They are fragile. Drop them on the floor and you can expect them to break. But sometimes they do not break. Or wash them by hand in the metal sink. Probably won't break even though you are bumping them into the metal sink and the pots and pans in the sink. I use glass drinking glasses and do not break them. I use helmets and do not break them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
> >> And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
> >> Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
> >> - showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
> >>
> >> "You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
> >> marketing strategy.
> >
> > I have never bought into the buy a new helmet every year mythology. I keep mine for many years. Only buy a new one when I see a new one on sale and the old one is getting kind of worn out from usage and is smelling too much. Or its adjustment, tightening system has gotten to loose. I am all for keeping your old helmet and using it for a long time. But if you do get in a crash, maybe then reconsider whether you need a new one to replace the now crushed, squished one.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
> >>>
> >>> Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
> >> Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
> >> restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
> >> people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
> >> when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
> >> U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
> >> hassle.
> >
> > I have used the cable lock through the vents on the helmet trick many times. It works. And its very easy. Other times I just wrap the strap around the downtube and front wheel. So its unlocked. But I've never had one stolen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
> >> across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
> >> room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
> >> how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
> >> wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.
> >
> > When I traveled overseas with my full size non folding bike, I packed the helmet in the same cardboard box as the bike. Or you could pack it into your regular luggage. Like I did with my panniers. A duffel bag or box with all the other gear. I think I used my handlebar bag as a carryon bag. How to carry my helmet on a flight is down near the very bottom of my worries and troubles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
> >> distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.
> >>>> and their
> >>>> effectiveness is questionable at best.
> >>>
> >>> OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.
> >> It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
> >> protective value.
> >
> > No. Very wrong. My experience has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the helmet's protective value. I am reminded of that protective value every single day of my life. Or every single day since age 12. When I was 12, riding my bike to 7th grade. I was involved in a car bike crash. After regaining consciousness in the hospital, I discovered a lot of stiches in my forehead. A scar. A big scar developed from that. And every single day since then, when I look in a mirror, or see a picture of myself, I see what not wearing a helmet can cause. A large scar on my forehead. If I had been wearing a helmet that day over four decades ago, I would not have a daily reminder of how protective a helmet can be.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger.. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash.. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.
> >> Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
> >> willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
> >> people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
> >> happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
> >> perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!
> >
> > Yes, more people die from tripping and hitting their head while walking or slipping in the bathtub than dies from bicycle crashes. All are bad. And it makes sense to emphasize making bathtubs and walking more safe. And bicycling too. We have grab handles in bathtubs for some old people. And we make steps a uniform size so people won't trip as easily on stairs. And we try to make bicyclists wear helmets. But still more bathtub and stair tripping, slipping deaths. Just because we can't stop the top killers, does not mean we should not stop the small killers. Its called low hanging fruit. Take the small gains you can even if the big gain remains out of reach. I do not see anything wrong with this. If we save a life with a helmet on a bicyclist head, then that is good. Celebrate. And mourn for the bathtub slipper death. But be happy you saved the bicycle death with a helmet.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
> >> bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
> >> marketing myth.
> >>> Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow.
> >> As I've said, I've fallen quite a few times back when I was doing
> >> moderately adventurous mountain biking. Not high speed stuff; more like
> >> narrow woodland trails, but some scary stuff in old strip mining
> >> territories. I was never injured.
> >>
> >> I've suffered exactly two moving on-road falls, plus IIRC just one
> >> stationary lost-my-balance topple. My first moving fall was biking home
> >> after work, descending a super-steep (probably 15%) city street in
> >> winter at walking pace, when I turned to avoid broken glass and slipped
> >> on gravel. I scraped my knee and tore my jacket. The second was when the
> >> front forks of our tandem suddenly snapped off on hitting a pothole at
> >> 10 mph. I hurt my shoulder.
> >>
> >> I've never fallen because of a car crash, never slid out at speed on a
> >> turn, never run into another cyclist, never been taken down by a dog,
> >
> > A dog did sort of take me out. I think 7th or 8th grade. Biking home from school. Junior high. Dog ran out of the yard and ran sideways into my rear wheel. His body slammed into my rear wheel sideways. Bent the rear wheel way out of shape. Tacoed it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> etc. I've ridden avidly as an adult since 1973.
> >>
> >> I certainly had some falls as a kid, but I honestly remember the details
> >> of only one. It has a helmet moral. Basically, if I'd have worn a helmet
> >> it would certainly have been smashed, and many people would certainly
> >> have said "It saved your life." But I wore no helmet, I said "Wow, that
> >> hurt!" and I got up and continued delivering papers by bike.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TB3iFhTovPzQCAdrwn6bLH.jpg

On 5/9/2022 7:56 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:18:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 6:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>>>>>> percent for
>>>>>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>>>>>> they were
>>>>>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>>>>>> keeping them
>>>>>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>>>>>> would be half
>>>>>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>>>>>> of adequate
>>>>>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>>>>>> other half
>>>>>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>>>>>> taking risks
>>>>>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>>>>>> major accident
>>>>>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>>>>>> not dying
>>>>>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>>>>>> Current
>>>>>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>>>>>> without a
>>>>>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>>>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>>>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>>>>>> that is up
>>>>>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>>>>>> which probably
>>>>>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>>>>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>>>>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>>>>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>>>>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>>>>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>>>>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>>>>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>>>>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>>>>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>>>>>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>>>>>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>>>>>> motor vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
>>>>> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
>>>>> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
>>>>> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
>>>>> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
>>>>> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
>>>>> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
>>>>> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
>>>>> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>>>>>
>>>> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
>>>> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
>>>> your life:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
>>>
>>> Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.
>>> "lives in a dictatorship"
>>
>> pot, kettle, black.
>
> But we can do something about it and this November will. Whereas, John lives in a dictatorship because it is all he has ever known in the military and likely afterwards,.
>

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2022 4:41 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>>>>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>>>>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>>>>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>>>>> serious injury.
>>>
>>> If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
>>> otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
>>> fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.
>>>
>>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
>>>
>>> And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
>>> will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
>>> injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
>>> involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> On the whole looking at a population level and noting for example the death
>> rates in London over the years plus the Dutch who seem to at a population
>> be safer than Uk, with very low helmet use rates.
>>
>> Would suggest that for populations helmets are not of any use.
>
> Well of course that's ridiculous. We all know the reason why the Dutch
> numbers are so low, it's because they've invested so heavily in bicycle
> infrastructure, as well as the fact that when you have more cyclists on
> the road it improves safety for all of them.

My post you snipped essentially noted that ie infrastructure works, or
rather good stuff does.

Safety in numbers I’m not terribly convinced by, nor if I’m aware provable
ie difficult to tease out any differences, as often other changes have
happened.

London has had a big boom for example in cycling numbers but since the
death rates are so low ie single figures, it’s really not useable.

equally when Australia brought in the helmet laws, and usage dropped the
rate was largely static, from memory.
>
> Read <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm#>
> and
> <https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure>
>
> and
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753515001472> and
> file them under "more facts and statistics that Frank doesn't like."
>
> The abstract of the last citation is succinct and cuts to the core of
> the issue: "Factors found to contribute to this improvement include the
> establishment of a road hierarchy with large traffic-calmed areas where
> through traffic is kept out. A heavily used freeway network shifts motor
> vehicles from streets with high cycling levels. This reduces exposure to
> high-speed motor vehicles. Separated bicycle paths and intersection
> treatments decrease the likelihood of bicycle–motor vehicle crashes. The
> high amount of bicycle use increases safety as a higher bicycle modal
> share corresponds with a lower share of driving and greater awareness of
> cyclists among drivers. Low cycling speed was also found to contribute
> to the high level of cycling safety in the Netherlands." All of these go
> against the precepts of the discredited "vehicular cycling" philosophy,
> OMG, "separated bicycle paths!," what were the Dutch thinking?!
>

Absolutely about half of my commute is a fairly rubbish in many way
segregated bike path, in that it’s narrow so if you do meet anyone it’s a
bit more of a squeeze and since it’s on a bypass very few folks find it
useful, but it’s so quiet it’s rare to see anyone else using it! And it’s
just shy of 5 miles…

But for me it’s a direct quiet and fast route since it bypasses most
junctions and what not.

Roger Merriman