On Tue, 10 May 2022 07:12:51 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/9/2022 9:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 16:14:45 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.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).
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>
>>> OK.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
>>> Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.
>>>
>>> I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.
>>
>> Well, Yes, there is a difference.
>>
>> During WW II Thailand continued to govern themselves while "allowing"
>> the Japanese to establish military bases in their territory... Just
>> like they allowed the US to establish military bases in the country in
>> the 1960's - I believe that last U.S. base closed in 1976??
>>
>
>I know several US officers who served in Thailand in the
>last 20~30 years. We keep a substantial presence there yet.

True, but the last "base" closed in the 1970's.

--
Cheers,

John B.