On 5/9/2022 8:59 AM, sms 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.
>
> 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?!

Scharf is so desperate to win an argument with me that he's now
switching topics completely.

Steve, this discussion has been about helmets, and more specifically
about helmet promoters (like you) grossly overstating the dangers of
cycling, and grossly overstating the value of helmets. If you had any
hope of disproving the data I've provided, you'd be sticking to the
topic instead of trying to change it.

If you want to discuss segregated bike infrastructure, do that in a
different thread. But you should be aware that it's not difficult to
demonstrate your foolishness regarding that topic as well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2022 7:44 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

> 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.

I don't think that it's just mere numbers, it's the change in mindset of
drivers when so many people, including their family members that are out
there on bicycles. Of course to get to those cycling levels you have to
have the infrastructure, it's chicken and the egg.

Am 09.05.2022 um 18:17 schrieb sms:
> On 5/9/2022 7:44 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't think that it's just mere numbers, it's the change in mindset of
> drivers when so many people, including their family members that are out
> there on bicycles. Of course to get to those cycling levels you have to
> have the infrastructure, it's chicken and the egg.

Actually, it's well documented that in the Netherlands and in Germany,
it's been lots of cyclists first and the infrastructure removing
cylcists from roads second.

Rolf

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> 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,.
> >
> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>
> What have you done?
>
> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
> (unlike USA).

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:44:13 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/9/2022 4:41 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@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.

The case of the Dutch is a rather odd comparison. Firstly they are a polite group to begin with. This is something that American drivers most assuredly are not. Just driving back from Palo Alto yesterday even though the traffic was so heavy that speeds were between 50 and 65, I was cut off so sharply I had to apply my brakes dozens of times from people that HAD to go faster than the average speed of the traffic by swerving back and forth through traffic. Bicycles are a great deal safer with bike lanes because people have a mental set of staying within the white lines. But if traffic gets heavy many drivers will pull into the bike lane if they have enough room to move up. Most of the worst offenders don't have driver's licenses and are in stolen cars. They just passed a law in San Francisco yesterday that police aren't allowed to pull people over for a driving error in order to check on everything else. This is the radical left in action.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:27:51 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 09.05.2022 um 18:17 schrieb sms:
> > On 5/9/2022 7:44 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I don't think that it's just mere numbers, it's the change in mindset of
> > drivers when so many people, including their family members that are out
> > there on bicycles. Of course to get to those cycling levels you have to
> > have the infrastructure, it's chicken and the egg.
> Actually, it's well documented that in the Netherlands and in Germany,
> it's been lots of cyclists first and the infrastructure removing
> cylcists from roads second.

While I have no problem removing bicycles from high speed highways if there is any other route available, I absolutely despise bike paths which become dog walking paths and routes for people doing absolutely everything other than cycling.

I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a real cycling lane and that is really all you need.

On 5/9/2022 11:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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,.
>>>
>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>
>> What have you done?
>>
>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>> (unlike USA).
>
> Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."
>

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:44:13 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2022 4:41 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@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.
>
> The case of the Dutch is a rather odd comparison. Firstly they are a
> polite group to begin with. This is something that American drivers most
> assuredly are not. Just driving back from Palo Alto yesterday even though
> the traffic was so heavy that speeds were between 50 and 65, I was cut
> off so sharply I had to apply my brakes dozens of times from people that
> HAD to go faster than the average speed of the traffic by swerving back
> and forth through traffic. Bicycles are a great deal safer with bike
> lanes because people have a mental set of staying within the white lines.
> But if traffic gets heavy many drivers will pull into the bike lane if
> they have enough room to move up. Most of the worst offenders don't have
> driver's licenses and are in stolen cars. They just passed a law in San
> Francisco yesterday that police aren't allowed to pull people over for a
> driving error in order to check on everything else. This is the radical left in action.
>
Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
there they took a different route.

Roger Merriman

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:27:51 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 09.05.2022 um 18:17 schrieb sms:
>>> On 5/9/2022 7:44 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it's just mere numbers, it's the change in mindset of
>>> drivers when so many people, including their family members that are out
>>> there on bicycles. Of course to get to those cycling levels you have to
>>> have the infrastructure, it's chicken and the egg.
>> Actually, it's well documented that in the Netherlands and in Germany,
>> it's been lots of cyclists first and the infrastructure removing
>> cylcists from roads second.
>
> While I have no problem removing bicycles from high speed highways if
> there is any other route available, I absolutely despise bike paths which
> become dog walking paths and routes for people doing absolutely
> everything other than cycling.
>
> I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a
> real cycling lane and that is really all you need.
>
Paint doesn’t really work as folks can do drift over, on the section of my
commute that has barriers that is much more relaxing vs painted line where
I have to be much more aware of the traffic.

And sometimes it will arguably be worse for you, personally the segregated
bike lanes from Westminster to tower are slower, since you have lot more
cyclists and runners and well you name it, but you know what that’s fine,
it’s not for folks like myself who can pull away smarty from lights, zip
along fast and generally am confident in traffic.

Roger Merriman.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:12:53 PM UTC+2, Roger Merriman wrote:
t in action.
> >
> Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
> will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
> there they took a different route.
>
> Roger Merriman

In the 70's I went to high school (on bike of coarse) and traffic was terrible/chaotic especially in the inner cities. They kinked all the cars out of the cities centers from the mid 70's on and that was an HUGE improvements. Makes everything nicer. You cannot bike everywhere though. Some areas are restricted only for pedestrians. Since then bike routes and paths are always part of road design whether is new or redesigned and it is consistent. As a faster rider I'm not always that happy on busy times but overall it is good. We take it often for granted but people visiting us from abroad are always impressed.
Typical bike path on this kind of road (N-roads);

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.389171,6.1054998,3a,75y,311.21h,98.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dt4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D179.56662%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Lou

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/9/2022 11:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> 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,.
> >>>
> >> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
> >>
> >> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
> >>
> >> What have you done?
> >>
> >> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
> >> (unlike USA).
> >
> > Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."
> >
> Same here.
>
> Constitution be damned, Congress the Court and the
> Administrative State walk all over the plain text whenever
> expedient and with no recourse.
>
> p.s. Vajiralongkorn, as Elizabeth II, is not an absolute
> monarch. Mswati III is closer to absolute rule if you're
> looking for a current example.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:57:14 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:12:53 PM UTC+2, Roger Merriman wrote:
> t in action.
> > >
> > Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
> > will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
> > there they took a different route.
> >
> > Roger Merriman
> In the 70's I went to high school (on bike of coarse) and traffic was terrible/chaotic especially in the inner cities. They kinked all the cars out of the cities centers from the mid 70's on and that was an HUGE improvements. Makes everything nicer. You cannot bike everywhere though. Some areas are restricted only for pedestrians. Since then bike routes and paths are always part of road design whether is new or redesigned and it is consistent. As a faster rider I'm not always that happy on busy times but overall it is good. We take it often for granted but people visiting us from abroad are always impressed.
> Typical bike path on this kind of road (N-roads);
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.389171,6.1054998,3a,75y,311.21h,98.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dt4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D179.56662%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
>
> Lou
They have been doing a lot of experimentation on bicycle lanes here and some of them look like your picture. I admit that this works very well but at the same time his a horrible expense inasmuch as the roads adjacent are covered in potholes that aren't being repaired.

On 5/9/2022 10:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

>> I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a
>> real cycling lane and that is really all you need.
>>
> Paint doesn’t really work as folks can do drift over, on the section of my
> commute that has barriers that is much more relaxing vs painted line where
> I have to be much more aware of the traffic.

It isn't just vehicles drifting over, it's also vehicles using the
bicycle lane as really long right-turn lane, or using it as a way to
pass vehicles on the right if the vehicle is waiting to turn left (both
based on countries where you drive on the right). Even more than either
of those, it's vehicles that illegally park or stop in the bike lane.
When the barriers are in place they can't do any of those things.

> And sometimes it will arguably be worse for you, personally the segregated
> bike lanes from Westminster to tower are slower, since you have lot more
> cyclists and runners and well you name it, but you know what that’s fine,
> it’s not for folks like myself who can pull away smarty from lights, zip
> along fast and generally am confident in traffic.

Yes, there have been complaints by more experienced, faster, cyclists
that a) it's difficult or impossible to pass slower cyclists, and b)
there are a lot more of those slower cyclists because of the
infrastructure. There are also complaints by vehicle drivers because
even though the vehicle lanes are not any narrower than they were when
the bike lanes were just painted lines, now they have to be careful to
not drift over because of the concrete barriers.

On 5/9/2022 10:57 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:12:53 PM UTC+2, Roger Merriman wrote:
> t in action.
>>>
>> Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
>> will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
>> there they took a different route.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> In the 70's I went to high school (on bike of coarse) and traffic was terrible/chaotic especially in the inner cities. They kinked all the cars out of the cities centers from the mid 70's on and that was an HUGE improvements. Makes everything nicer. You cannot bike everywhere though. Some areas are restricted only for pedestrians. Since then bike routes and paths are always part of road design whether is new or redesigned and it is consistent. As a faster rider I'm not always that happy on busy times but overall it is good. We take it often for granted but people visiting us from abroad are always impressed.
> Typical bike path on this kind of road (N-roads);
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.389171,6.1054998,3a,75y,311.21h,98.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dt4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D179.56662%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
>
> Lou

The slow speed of cycle commuters in countries like The Netherlands no
doubt also contributes to the injury and fatality rate in crashes. "The
average speed of the Dutch on a pedal bicycle is 12.4 km/h and the speed
on an e-bike is 13 km/h" (7.7MPH and 8.1 MPH)
<https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/>.

I recall the first time I was cycling in China in 1987. Massive numbers
of cyclists riding at a maddeningly slow speed, and no real way to pass
given the density. Just go with the flow, ring your bell, ride at the
same speed as everyone else, don't make any sudden stops (not really
possible since the rod brakes had little effect) and don't make
unexpected turns.

On 5/9/2022 1:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/9/2022 11:29 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> 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,.
>>>>>
>>>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>>>
>>>> What have you done?
>>>>
>>>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>>>> (unlike USA).
>>>
>>> Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."
>>>
>> Same here.
>>
>> Constitution be damned, Congress the Court and the
>> Administrative State walk all over the plain text whenever
>> expedient and with no recourse.
>>
>> p.s. Vajiralongkorn, as Elizabeth II, is not an absolute
>> monarch. Mswati III is closer to absolute rule if you're
>> looking for a current example.
>
> Andrew, I know that after a year of Biden that it looks that way and you might be losing hope. But that isn't the way it is, The Congress, President and Courts are answerable to the people one way or another. I'm quite sure that you will see that in November. As well as shootings of ballot box stuffers.
>

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:24 AM UTC-5, 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
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> 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,.
> >
> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>
> What have you done?
>
> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
> (unlike USA).
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 9 May 2022 11:21:17 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 10:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a
>>> real cycling lane and that is really all you need.
>>>
>> Paint doesn’t really work as folks can do drift over, on the section of my
>> commute that has barriers that is much more relaxing vs painted line where
>> I have to be much more aware of the traffic.
>
>It isn't just vehicles drifting over, it's also vehicles using the
>bicycle lane as really long right-turn lane, or using it as a way to
>pass vehicles on the right if the vehicle is waiting to turn left (both
>based on countries where you drive on the right). Even more than either
>of those, it's vehicles that illegally park or stop in the bike lane.
>When the barriers are in place they can't do any of those things.
>
>> And sometimes it will arguably be worse for you, personally the segregated
>> bike lanes from Westminster to tower are slower, since you have lot more
>> cyclists and runners and well you name it, but you know what that’s fine,
>> it’s not for folks like myself who can pull away smarty from lights, zip
>> along fast and generally am confident in traffic.
>
>Yes, there have been complaints by more experienced, faster, cyclists
>that a) it's difficult or impossible to pass slower cyclists, and b)
>there are a lot more of those slower cyclists because of the
>infrastructure. There are also complaints by vehicle drivers because
>even though the vehicle lanes are not any narrower than they were when
>the bike lanes were just painted lines, now they have to be careful to
>not drift over because of the concrete barriers.

But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
bicycle lanes?

If, for example, you hit a bicycle and kill the rider then that is
manslaughter and you go to jail. 2 - 4 years I believe in California.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/9/2022 6:02 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:24 AM UTC-5, 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 6:14 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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,.
>>>
>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>
>> What have you done?
>>
>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>> (unlike USA).

On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
> Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
> bicycle lanes?

In the U.S., what most places do is to design traffic calming measures
to reduce the need to increase expenditures on law-enforcement for
traffic control. Prior to the invention of traffic control signals, it
was necessary to hire police officers to direct traffic at intersections.

In the U.S., there is not enough money to continually pay salaries,
benefits, pensions, and overhead for the number of police that would be
necessary to do such law enforcement. It makes much more sense to put in
the necessary infrastructure.

On Mon, 9 May 2022 05:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> 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,.

On 5/9/2022 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> But when we were in an urban area with daily bicycle rentals the helmet
> rate was about 1/3 backwards. My staff learned to never mention it. We'd
> get either an argument or an horrified embarrassed customer, neither of
> which make the day go any better.

We usually rent bicycles whenever we are on vacation, whether in the
U.S. or in other countries. Helmets are just not an issue. Most bicycle
rental places offer them at no extra cost, though for a lot of people,
wearing a rental helmet is not something that they want to do.

When a hotel has rental bicycles they usually don’t offer helmets, but
in cases where helmets are not available, it’s no big deal, since the
risk of a fall where a helmet would be necessary is pretty small.

The last trip we took, back in September 2021, to New England, we took
helmets with us in our carry-on bags. They don’t take much space since
you can pack things inside them. There are also folding helmets. We used
our helmets three times in an eight day trip. We did an organized
touristy ride in Boston and there was one crash by someone on an eBike.

On Mon, 09 May 2022 09:34:20 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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,.
>>
>
>Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>
>https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>
>What have you done?

On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:34:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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,.
>> >
>> Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society
>>
>> What have you done?
>>
>> Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
>> (unlike USA).
>
>Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."