advisor wanted

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about
Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters
where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and
hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the
sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over
me.

A helmet protects against unfriendly motorists in what way exactly?

Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34),
his first time on
a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles
he hit over 29
mph several times. To be honest I did not wear a helmet when I was 37
either, I only started wearing them several years ago after I had a bad
fall, hit a dog on my diamond frame. First thing I did the next day
was to order a helmet.
Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I
just don't see it
I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? The start
of this thread was
how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without
some sort of
visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a
hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to
30? In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only
one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat.
I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never
once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics
or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I
push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15
months. From my personal experences and personal observations I choose
to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my
buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and
breaking apart. For that matter I would never ride without my glasses,
and have tried several types of goggles/shields which I did not like
(we got huge hoppers down here).
You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have
either, to get that you have to have controls and even then you may
bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I
saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it
(it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. Your data
comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a
computer. No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree
or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I
think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you
are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet
and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and
common sense tells you to. I can no more ride off without my helmet
than I can drive a car without a seat belt. Maybe I should put a belt
on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are
so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. For
that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit,
they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife
if they think you should ride with or without a helmet.
Got to go tomorrow is a ride day and the weather looks perfect again,
and I have all that left over Halloween Candy to eat.haha

Happy Trails Butch

Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34),
his first time on
a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles
he hit over 29
mph several times. To be honest I did not wear a helmet when I was 37
either, I only started wearing them several years ago after I had a bad
fall, hit a dog on my diamond frame. First thing I did the next day
was to order a helmet.
Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I
just don't see it
I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? The start
of this thread was
how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without
some sort of
visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a
hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to
30? In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only
one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat.
I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never
once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics
or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I
push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15
months. From my personal experences and personal observations I choose
to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my
buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and
breaking apart. For that matter I would never ride without my glasses,
and have tried several types of goggles/shields which I did not like
(we got huge hoppers down here).
You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have
either, to get that you have to have controls and even then you may
bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I
saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it
(it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. Your data
comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a
computer. No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree
or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I
think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you
are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet
and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and
common sense tells you to. I can no more ride off without my helmet
than I can drive a car without a seat belt. Maybe I should put a belt
on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are
so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. For
that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit,
they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife
if they think you should ride with or without a helmet.
Got to go tomorrow is a ride day and the weather looks perfect again,
and I have all that left over Halloween Candy to eat.haha

Happy Trails Butch

Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34),
his first time on
a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles
he hit over 29
mph several times. To be honest I did not wear a helmet when I was 37
either, I only started wearing them several years ago after I had a bad
fall, hit a dog on my diamond frame. First thing I did the next day
was to order a helmet.
Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I
just don't see it
I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? The start
of this thread was
how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without
some sort of
visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a
hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to
30? In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only
one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat.
I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never
once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics
or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I
push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15
months. From my personal experences and personal observations I choose
to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my
buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and
breaking apart. For that matter I would never ride without my glasses,
and have tried several types of goggles/shields which I did not like
(we got huge hoppers down here).
You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have
either, to get that you have to have controls and even then you may
bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I
saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it
(it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. Your data
comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a
computer. No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree
or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I
think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you
are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet
and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and
common sense tells you to. I can no more ride off without my helmet
than I can drive a car without a seat belt. Maybe I should put a belt
on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are
so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. For
that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit,
they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife
if they think you should ride with or without a helmet.
Got to go tomorrow is a ride day and the weather looks perfect again,
and I have all that left over Halloween Candy to eat.haha

Happy Trails Butch

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

If they're gathered in the US, of course they do. Please cite some that
show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. Until that is done,
why assume you /must/ be better off with a helmet?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

If they're gathered in the US, of course they do. Please cite some that
show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. Until that is done,
why assume you /must/ be better off with a helmet?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

If they're gathered in the US, of course they do. Please cite some that
show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. Until that is done,
why assume you /must/ be better off with a helmet?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

Quoted message said:

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

Quoted message said:

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Quoted message said:

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

Quoted message said:

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

Quoted message said:

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Quoted message said:

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

Quoted message said:

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

Quoted message said:

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Quoted message said:

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because
of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that
comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be
telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who
have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US
because of the attitude of US drivers.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Quoted message said:

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because
of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that
comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be
telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who
have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US
because of the attitude of US drivers.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Quoted message said:

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because
of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that
comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be
telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who
have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US
because of the attitude of US drivers.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.

So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that
without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you
actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or
did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not
tenable in the face of the facts?

Quoted message said:

Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?

Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates
went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for
source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request.

Quoted message said:

That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.

I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much
difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The
cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you
done of both to compare?

Quoted message said:

Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.

But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere
in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the
US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are
completely different in the US?

Quoted message said:

Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.

Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.

And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like
that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham