Helmet saves life of bike store owner hit by car......

[eq2 sux]

"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Dan wrote:
>> > Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of Styrofoam that can be
> crushed with a finger would protect a skull (which, by the way, is
> many, many times harder than the Styrofoam hat) from that kind of
> trauma? If that's the extent of your intelligence I don't want you to
> respond should I ever need an EMT.
>
> If bicycle helmets could protect from this kind of injury, then they
> need to be required for much more dangerous activities such as
> climbing stairs, walking, or taking a shower.
>
> Austin
>
If you're stupid enough not to wear one, then you won't have to worry if I
respond. Use the protection, it can't hurt and may save your life. BTW, do
you use a seatbelt?

 

[Frank Krygowski]

mrbubl wrote:

>
> If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
> power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
> others.

The "organ donor" line is common, tiresome, and flat out wrong.

One of my best friends is an organ recipient. After his transplant, he
became an educator for a transplant organization.

He assures me that cyclists never have, and never will, be significant
sources of organ donations. First, there are FAR too few cyclist
deaths. In the US, only about 750 cyclists get killed each year.

Compare with about 40,000 motorists;
roughly 15,000 people who die from falls;
about 6000 pedestrians hit by cars;
perhaps 5000 drowning victims;
not to mention about over 700,000 heart attack victims and 150,000
stroke victims (the main sources of organ donors, he claims).

Furthermore, he pointed out that (contrary to the hype) most cyclist
fatalities are _not_ nice clean corpses that regrettably died from a
light tap on the head. Instead, almost all have been hit by cars and
suffered the sorts of multiple internal injuries that ruin organs.

So, as usual, another trite piece of pro-helmet propaganda is worthless
when examined seriously.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Scott Ehardt wrote:

>
> I am not taking sides on this issue, but I will point out that in this form
> your statistics are useless. Comparing number of showering injuries to
> number of bicycling injuries is completely irrelevant. If you wanted to
> prove something going in that direction, you would need to compare "injuries
> per man-hour of showering vs. bicycling" or at the least "number of cycling
> injuries per cyclist vs. number of showering injuries per showerer"

The injuries per hour figures are, unfortunately, very hard to come by.
But most data that addresses this seem to indicate cycling is _not_
unusually dangerous per hour.

One paper examined head injury deaths per million hours for cycling,
walking, motoring and motorcycling. (The data was for Queensland,
Australia). Here are the results:

cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours
pedestrians: 0.34 " " " "
motor vehicle occupants: 0.17 " " " "
motorcyclist : 2.90 " " " "

(From "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws", D.L. Robinson, Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Vol 28, no 4

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html lists estimates of fatalities
per million hours for various activities. Cycling appears roughly four
times safer than swimming, by these numbers - from the largest risk
consultation firm in the USA.

Other sources tell roughly the same story. For example, other athletic
activities cause many more ER visits per hour than cycling does.

The current myth, propagated by the helmet pushers, is that cycling is
extremely dangerous. Obviously, those who can make money selling
helmets don't care about disparaging cycling. Just as obviously, those
handwringers who are anxious to bubble-wrap every little kid, don't care
about disparaging cycling.

But it always amazes me that so many cyclists are eager to jump on that
bandwagon. How foolish!

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan wrote:

>
>>I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say
>
> something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about your
> safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin', you're gonna
> be a vegetable or die more than likely.

People have been hitting their heads since prehistory. Cyclists have
been riding without helmets, by the hundreds of millions, for well over
100 years. The idea that every fall off a bike or every bump on the
head is a likely fatality is absolute nonsense.

Cycling isn't even on the map for fatal head injuries! HI fatalities in
the US are estimated to be between 56,000 and 115,000 per year,
depending who's doing the estimating. (The lower figure is probably more
reliable.) Cycling fatalities from _all_ injuries are only about 750
per year. Cycling head injury fatalities are less than 1% of the
country's total HI fatalities!


>Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
> what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a walking,talking
> Texan that wears a helmet.

When you're walking, keep that helmet on. There are far more fatal HIs
from simple falls than from cycling.

Keep it on when you're driving, too. Motorists are roughly 50% of the
fatal HIs in the US. Again, cyclists are less than 1%.

I'm trimming your horror story. If you're really an EMT, don't tell us
about pictures you've seen. Tell us about the last 100 serious (say,
hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.

If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
them would be a cyclist.

So: What's the count?

(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk away.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[eq2 sux]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Dan wrote:
>
>>
>>>I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say
>>
>> something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about
>> your safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin',
>> you're gonna be a vegetable or die more than likely.
>
> People have been hitting their heads since prehistory. Cyclists have
> been riding without helmets, by the hundreds of millions, for well
> over 100 years. The idea that every fall off a bike or every bump on
> the head is a likely fatality is absolute nonsense.
>
> Cycling isn't even on the map for fatal head injuries! HI fatalities
> in the US are estimated to be between 56,000 and 115,000 per year,
> depending who's doing the estimating. (The lower figure is probably
> more reliable.) Cycling fatalities from _all_ injuries are only about
> 750 per year. Cycling head injury fatalities are less than 1% of the
> country's total HI fatalities!
>
>
>>Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
>> what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a
>> walking,talking Texan that wears a helmet.
>
> When you're walking, keep that helmet on. There are far more fatal
> HIs from simple falls than from cycling.
>
> Keep it on when you're driving, too. Motorists are roughly 50% of the
> fatal HIs in the US. Again, cyclists are less than 1%.
>
> I'm trimming your horror story. If you're really an EMT, don't tell
> us about pictures you've seen. Tell us about the last 100 serious
> (say, hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.
>
> If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
> them would be a cyclist.
>
> So: What's the count?
>
> (Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk
> away.)
>

I'll see 100 cars before I see a bicycle. So, we talking percentages or
are you just giving lip service for the sake of argueing. If you don't
want to wear a helmet, then don't. but if one person does wear it becuz
of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
road. No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

psycholist wrote:

> If a cyclist has a bad fall and hits
> his head and the helmet does its job and he/she gets up and rides happily on
> his/her merry way, they don't end up in any statistics. But they were quite
> possibly saved from serious injury by a helmet.
>
>...
>
> You can argue statistics and findings and such all day long. They don't
> capture the incidents like the one I cited at the outset of this post. Nor
> am I aware of any statisticians who were present to record my awful episode.
> I don't believe any of the statistics on helmets that I read and hear. I
> don't believe anyone is accurately recording these incidents.

<sigh> Why is this hard to understand?

It's not _necessary_ to have a statistician standing at every accident
site. That's not how this stuff works. If helmets prevent as many
injuries as claimed, then the tremendous surge in helmet use in the past
15 years should have caused a big drop in head injuries per cyclist.
But it hasn't! If anything, more data shows a _rise_ in head injuries
per cyclist. (See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html)

Some people have claimed that helmets are wonderfully protective, but
that - through amazing coincidence - cycling has gotten much more
dangerous in exact proportion to the helmets' use and protection. It's
a strange argument - sort of like this:

"My rabbit's foot is perfect protection against elephant attacks. Yeah,
I know there weren't any elephant attacks before I got my rabbit's foot,
but there _would_ have been if I didn't have it!"

But even that "reasoning" is belied by studies examining head injury
rates when helmets are forced on people all at once. In some places,
helmet use suddenly tripled (to as much as 90%) because of helmet laws.
One classic paper examined cyclists' head injury hospitalizations
while that sudden increase happened (just before a MHL), and found no
detectable improvement at all. ("Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand
under Voluntary Helmet Use", Scuffham, P. et. al., Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol 29 no 1)

> You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe. I'm not
> arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I had my
> helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist who
> logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they believe
> they'll never get hit.

I understand that getting injured as you did must be psychologically, as
well as physically, traumatic. It's not uncommon for people who survive
an airplane crash to never fly again - despite the airlines' tremendous
safety record. It's not uncommon for people to develop unrealistic
fears of everything from dogs to spiders to canoes, based on one bad
experience.

But I'll take the real-world data over your single experience, thanks.
That data indicates I would have to cycle for thousands of years to get
up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike, even if I can keep doing
thousands of miles every year. My risk per year is literally negigible.
More to the point, my risk is not affected by the presence or absence
of a helmet.

And if I do pay attention to individual experiences, I prefer my own.
I've been riding seriously as an adult for over 30 years now, and as a
kid for, oh, at least 15 years before that. I've never had an injury
worse than a childhood scraped knee. And like almost all the world's
cyclists, I probably never will.


And let me ask you something. If you knew you were
> going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Did you mean while walking, where the risk of fatal head injury per hour
is about twice that of cycling? Or did you mean while riding in a car,
where the risk is almost exactly the same?

Or did you mean we should wear a helmet _only_ while cycling? If so...
why only then??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

eq2 sux wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:

> Tell us about the last 100 serious
>>(say, hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.
>>
>>If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
>>them would be a cyclist.
>>
>>So: What's the count?
>>
>>(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk
>>away.)
>>
>
>
> I'll see 100 cars before I see a bicycle. So, we talking percentages or
> are you just giving lip service for the sake of argueing.

I've been talking absolute numbers, I've been talking percentages, and
I've been talking risk per hour of exposure. Take your pick. By any of
these measures, cycling is NOT very dangerous.

I'm sorry if this is hard for you to understand. I'm sorry if it
challenges your preconceived notions. But it's fact.

If you don't
> want to wear a helmet, then don't.

Why, thank you for your gracious permission!


but if one person does wear it becuz
> of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
> road.

Numbers, please! These vague hints of horrors just don't make it. How
many seriously head injured cyclists have you seen lying in the road in
the past ten years? How many seriously head injured motorists have you
pulled out of cars, or off the road?

Nationally, the numbers favor the cyclists. Nationally, the per-hour
figures also favor the cyclists. And if you don't understand "per hour"
let me know, and I'll explain it to you!

No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

I have no idea if you are or aren't. I know what's happened with the
last few folks who claimed to be EMTs. When asked for real numbers,
they left in a huff.

Since you're not giving numbers either (and are even changing your
screen name) I assume you're in the same situation: Caught with your
data down!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[RogerDodger]

...You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe. I'm not
arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I had my
helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist who
logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they believe
they'll never get hit. And let me ask you something. If you knew you were
going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Bob C.

Bob, feel free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe - and believe me your beliefs are unbelievably foolish. I for one would argue that I am in fact safer riding without a helmet (as I do) for the good reason that wearing a helmet compromises the innate and unconscious reflex actions that tend to avoid head impacts. The awareness of an exposed head is has a sort of subconscious programming effect and ensures that the natural reflexes of avoidance of head impact will continue to be the priority reaction response in an accident.

What amazes me is how people can be so lacking in psychological acuity - so foolish as to delude themselves as you do.

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

...
If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. but if one person does wear it becuz of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
road. No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

Well, whoever you are you appear to be stroking your own self importance here, Oh what magnaminous benefactance you display - and how dramatic - one less person laying on the road all because of your horror story. How old are you - I'd guess ten maybe twelve, or perhaps you're an adult with the mental age of a ten year old? Well hate to puncture your pretty little delusion but science and the statistics support the contrary to your comforting illusion.

Jerk? Oh, that's right - language typical of a brash impertinent ten year old.
Put your nappies on and get back in your cot.

Would you like a helmet lullaby to help put you to sleep?

 

[RogerDodger]

...If you're stupid enough not to wear one, then you won't have to worry if I
respond. Use the protection, it can't hurt and may save your life. BTW, do
you use a seatbelt?

Argument befitting a cognitively challenged ten year old- call people who don't wear a helmet stupid. Stupidity is...a childish behaviour of calling other people stupid. Definition: stupid people show themselves by incautiously calling other people stupid. I suspect that the poster in question might be incapable of recognising his condition.

 

[RogerDodger]

...If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help others.

mrbubl

Well there you go then... finish it off with a question begging howler. What moronic drivel - obviously you don't even have enough intelligence to realise that your petitio principii argument is fatally flawed.

Looks like a compound fallacy - ad bacalum and petitio principii. Look them up and learn something.
I'd guess you're a brainless dipstick trying to appear intelligent - you blew it.

 

[Joshua Putnam]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

> And none of it addressed what I said. If a cyclist has a bad fall and hits
> his head and the helmet does its job and he/she gets up and rides happily on
> his/her merry way, they don't end up in any statistics. But they were quite
> possibly saved from serious injury by a helmet.

I can't believe I'm getting involved in a helmet thread....

Your argument would work if helmets and bicycles had been invented at the
same time. But they weren't -- we have more than a hundred years of data
on cycling without helmets. So it should be easy to detect a significant
reduction in head injuries from cycling when helmets came along. Except
that cycling head injuries were never very numerous to begin with, and
they haven't shown the sort of dramatic declines that helmet advocates
suggest we should.

So, in your hypothetical, as long as the injury to a helmetless rider was
so minor that no medical attention would have been sought, then no, the
statistics won't include that accident. But if the helmet was really a
dramatic improvement, then when we compared cycling head injury rates
from 20 years ago with those of today, we'd see those non-reported
incidents as a reduction in head injury rates.

Feel free to try to find evidence that this has actually happened at
anything like the rates helmet zealots purport it would.

Now, of course, I do wear a helmet when I ride. They're very good at
reducing the minor injuries from the light impacts they're designed for.

I have no expectation that this magical foam talisman will protect me
from a fatal accident, but it will keep me from getting road rash on my
scalp again, like I did when I was hit by a car, thrown through the air,
and dragged my head down a curb without a helmet. (No serious injuries,
thank goodness, though if I'd been wearing a helmet I'm sure someone
would insist it had saved my life.)

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

 

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:34:51 +1100, RogerDodger wrote:

>
> psycholist Wrote:
>> ...You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.
>> I'm not
>> arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I
>> had my
>> helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist
>> who
>> logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they
>> believe
>> they'll never get hit. And let me ask you something. If you knew you
>> were
>> going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>>
>
> Bob, feel free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe -
> and believe me your beliefs are unbelievably foolish. I for one would
> argue that I am in fact safer riding without a helmet (as I do) for the
> good reason that wearing a helmet compromises the innate and unconscious
> reflex actions that tend to avoid head impacts. The awareness of an
> exposed head is has a sort of subconscious programming effect and
> ensures that the natural reflexes of avoidance of head impact will
> continue to be the priority reaction response in an accident.
>
> What amazes me is how people can be so lacking in psychological acuity
> - so foolish as to delude themselves as you do.
>
> Roger

I totally agree. I feel much safer riding without a helmet, as I am more
conscious of the fact that I should be riding alertly and safely to avoid
accidents in the first place. (As all bicycle riders, helmetted or not,
should be!) Unfortunately, here in NZ riding without a helmet is not
really an option, as the police here are utterly savage and ferocious in
enforcing this stupid counterproductive law. I simply gave up after
several episodes of starting any encounter with the police from the big
disadvantage that I had already broken the law. But at least I am still
riding, not like many of my countrypeople. The numbers of child bike
riders have reduced by about 80% since this draconian law was passed and
enforced; and the number of lady bike riders by about 90%. It is rare now
to see bicycling commuters less than 35 years old.
I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

 

[mrbubl]

RogerDodger wrote:
> mrbubl Wrote:
>
>>...If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>>power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>>others.
>>
>>mrbubl
>
>
> Well there you go then... finish it off with a question begging howler.
> What moronic drivel - obviously you don't even have enough intelligence
> to realise that your petitio principii argument is fatally flawed.

Fatally flawed........you crack me up! Must be from the brain injury
suffered from lack of head protection.

>
> Looks like a compound fallacy - ad bacalum and petitio principii. Look
> them up and learn something.

thank you professori!

> I'd guess you're a brainless dipstick trying to appear intelligent -
> you blew it.

No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night........

mrbubl

 

[Maggie]

> > How about those taking a shower without a helmet? Again, many times as
> > many people receiving head injuries from shower use than bicycle use.


Doesn't everyone put their helmet on when they take a shower?
Is it only me?
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

 

[psycholist]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mrbubl wrote:
>
>>
>> If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>> power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>> others.
>
> The "organ donor" line is common, tiresome, and flat out wrong.
>
> One of my best friends is an organ recipient. After his transplant, he
> became an educator for a transplant organization.
>
> He assures me that cyclists never have, and never will, be significant
> sources of organ donations. First, there are FAR too few cyclist deaths.
> In the US, only about 750 cyclists get killed each year.
>
> Compare with about 40,000 motorists;
> roughly 15,000 people who die from falls;
> about 6000 pedestrians hit by cars;
> perhaps 5000 drowning victims;
> not to mention about over 700,000 heart attack victims and 150,000 stroke
> victims (the main sources of organ donors, he claims).
>
> Furthermore, he pointed out that (contrary to the hype) most cyclist
> fatalities are _not_ nice clean corpses that regrettably died from a light
> tap on the head. Instead, almost all have been hit by cars and suffered
> the sorts of multiple internal injuries that ruin organs.
>
> So, as usual, another trite piece of pro-helmet propaganda is worthless
> when examined seriously.
>
>
> --
> --------------------+
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace
> with cc.ysu dot edu]
>

And equally as usual, another case of COMPLETELY misleading statistics. Of
course cyclists aren't a significant source of organ donations. There
aren't that many of us. What's relevant is to look at the number of organ
donations relative to the number of cyclists. What would also be more
relevant to this newsgroup is to toss out all the incidents involving people
who ride once a decade and focus on those of us who spend hours and hours
training on the road. How many of us, because of all of our hours of
exposure to traffic and all the miles we log, end up having a serious
incident at one time or another?

If I merely consider our cycling club, I can think of dozens of incidents in
the past couple of years where people were hit by cars, dogs ran into the
road and took them out, they went down in a paceline touch of wheels, etc.
I can also recall dozens of statements like, "were it not for my helmet, I'd
have been way more seriously hurt."

Can I cite statistics to back this up? No. Has anyone produced any
relevant statistics that apply to this population of serious cyclists who
log many hours on the roads? NO!

Am I pro helmet law? NO! Am I pro helmet? YES! Above all, I'm anti
statistics. I know statistics quite well and I know they can be quite
limited, quite biased and quite inaccurate.

Bob C.

 

[psycholist]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dan wrote:
>
>>
>>>I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say
>>
>> something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about your
>> safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin', you're gonna
>> be a vegetable or die more than likely.
>
> People have been hitting their heads since prehistory. Cyclists have been
> riding without helmets, by the hundreds of millions, for well over 100
> years. The idea that every fall off a bike or every bump on the head is a
> likely fatality is absolute nonsense.
>
> Cycling isn't even on the map for fatal head injuries! HI fatalities in
> the US are estimated to be between 56,000 and 115,000 per year, depending
> who's doing the estimating. (The lower figure is probably more reliable.)
> Cycling fatalities from _all_ injuries are only about 750 per year.
> Cycling head injury fatalities are less than 1% of the country's total HI
> fatalities!
>
>
>>Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
>> what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a walking,talking
>> Texan that wears a helmet.
>
> When you're walking, keep that helmet on. There are far more fatal HIs
> from simple falls than from cycling.
>
> Keep it on when you're driving, too. Motorists are roughly 50% of the
> fatal HIs in the US. Again, cyclists are less than 1%.
>
> I'm trimming your horror story. If you're really an EMT, don't tell us
> about pictures you've seen. Tell us about the last 100 serious (say,
> hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.
>
> If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of them
> would be a cyclist.
>
> So: What's the count?
>
> (Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk away.)
>
> --
> --------------------+
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace
> with cc.ysu dot edu]
>

As usual Frank, your statistics are entirely without merit or validity.

You say that cyclists account for less than 1% of fatal HI injuries and
that's your argument why we shouldn't worry about wearing helmets. Well,
Frank, what percent of the entire population do you suppose we represent.
Index that figure ... if you know what that means. THEN you'll have a
relevant analysis. Also, index that figure using only those cyclists who
are dedicated roadies who spend hours a week on the road.

I've heard so many lame arguments from people who say they've never had an
incident, but when you grill them a bit, you find out they ride maybe on
average a couple of hours a month or less. I ride a couple of hours a DAY.
The more you're out there, the more potential for something to happen. I
haven't seen any statistics yet that take that into account.

Bob C.

 

[psycholist]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> eq2 sux wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Tell us about the last 100 serious
>>>(say, hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.
>>>
>>>If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
>>>them would be a cyclist.
>>>
>>>So: What's the count?
>>>
>>>(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk
>>>away.)
>>
>>
>> I'll see 100 cars before I see a bicycle. So, we talking percentages or
>> are you just giving lip service for the sake of argueing.
>
> I've been talking absolute numbers, I've been talking percentages, and
> I've been talking risk per hour of exposure. Take your pick. By any of
> these measures, cycling is NOT very dangerous.
>
> I'm sorry if this is hard for you to understand. I'm sorry if it
> challenges your preconceived notions. But it's fact.
>
> If you don't
>> want to wear a helmet, then don't.
>
> Why, thank you for your gracious permission!
>
>
> but if one person does wear it becuz
>> of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
>> road.
>
> Numbers, please! These vague hints of horrors just don't make it. How
> many seriously head injured cyclists have you seen lying in the road in
> the past ten years? How many seriously head injured motorists have you
> pulled out of cars, or off the road?
>
> Nationally, the numbers favor the cyclists. Nationally, the per-hour
> figures also favor the cyclists. And if you don't understand "per hour"
> let me know, and I'll explain it to you!
>
> No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.
>
> I have no idea if you are or aren't. I know what's happened with the last
> few folks who claimed to be EMTs. When asked for real numbers, they left
> in a huff.
>
> Since you're not giving numbers either (and are even changing your screen
> name) I assume you're in the same situation: Caught with your data down!
>
>
> --
> --------------------+
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace
> with cc.ysu dot edu]
>

No it's not. It's more misleading statistics. See my earlier reply.
Without indexing these figures to the population of cyclists ... and mores
specifically, the population of dedicated roadies (for the sake of relevance
to these cycling newsgroups), your figures are MEANINGLESS!

Bob C.

 

[AustinMN]

mrbubl wrote:
> RogerDodger wrote:
>> mrbubl Wrote:
>>>...If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>>>power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>>>others.
>>>
>>>mrbubl
>>
>>
>> Well there you go then... finish it off with a question begging howler.
>> What moronic drivel - obviously you don't even have enough intelligence
>> to realise that your petitio principii argument is fatally flawed.
>
> Fatally flawed........you crack me up! Must be from the brain injury
> suffered from lack of head protection.

Another helmet troll more interested in winning the argument than in
learning the truth.

<plonk>

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[AustinMN]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
<snip>
> but if one person does wear it becuz
>> of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
>> road.
>
> Numbers, please! These vague hints of horrors just don't make it. How
> many seriously head injured cyclists have you seen lying in the road in
> the past ten years? How many seriously head injured motorists have you
> pulled out of cars, or off the road?

Indeed! It is interesting that he didn't pull an incident from his
experience, but from a photograph as part of his training!

Having received First Responders training myself, I know that almost all of
those photos are faked, and are intended to weed out those who will crawl to
the side of the road and loose their cookies every time they respond to a
gory scene.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address