Re: Helmets

Zoot Katz said:

3 Jun 2005 09:49:42 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] concluded:
\snip

Quoted message said:

And
if one wants to have their contributions taken most seriously, one
should post using their name.

I found out early on that Usenet is taken too seriously by kooks so I
use an alias.

Actually, Zoot, you've been around long enough under that name that
most people know you well. And your chosen name is not likely to be
mistaken for another's. Even if it's not your real name (who knew?
;-) it functions just as well.

There may be other examples that are similar. But by and large, a code
of letters and numbers is not the same.

Can anyone name a long term, serious poster who goes by an unmemorable
code-like "handle"? There may be one, but I can't think of an example.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

John_Kane said:

Actually most or all are not anit-helmet as anti-helmet law. There is a
big difference.

There is a huge difference, but "anti-helmet law" doesn't describe my
views completely.

Primarily, I'm against the absurd notion that riding a bike is so
blasted dangerous that doing it in the costume almost everybody uses is
somehow "wrong."

Think about this: Since at least 1890, people have been riding bikes
with tweed caps, cotton cycling caps, Easter bonnets, baseball caps, or
(most often) no hat at all.

Then Bell Sports invents the styrofoam bike helmet and gets everyone
whining about the _possibility_ of a head injury while cycling.

Fast forward 30 years, and we have people who actually think it's
abnormal to ride without a multicolored styrofoam cap! Despite the
fact that less than 1% of the world's cycling time is done in such
caps! Despite the fact that cycling is NOT an unusual source of
serious head injuries! And despite the fact that entire countries
worth of cyclists have been forbidden to ride without such caps, yet
have seen no benefit!

The marketers, with the help of the hand-wringers, have created an
imaginary need, and "filled it" with a product that doesn't work as
claimed. And their well-meaning volunteers are happy to disparage
cycling to sell the product.

The stupidity of the situation offends me greatly. And if I'm "anti"
anything, I'm "anti-stupidity."

- Frank Krygowski

Oh, well yes of course. I was just trying to make the point that most
(all?) people who oppose a mandatory helmet law are not trying to ban
helmets. I agree about the level of stupidity shown in many cases. I
just walked by a safety diplay for kids at our local library (an
outside group's) where one of the main messages for cycling was 'always
wear a helmet". I will say that at least they had some good advice on
proper riding technique.

And now I've been seeing some articles about just how useful helmets
are for skiing or snowboarding (both in the popular press and the
medical journals). Unfortunately the same idiot assumptions and what
may be bad research is showing up there. I was not impressed when I
read one paper that referenced three "supporting" papers about helmet
use and when I checked one I discovered that there was no mention of
helmets. The "protective devices" being studied were some kind of wrist
protectors.

John Kane
Kingston ON

Zoot Katz said:

3 Jun 2005 09:49:42 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] concluded:
\snip

Quoted message said:

And
if one wants to have their contributions taken most seriously, one
should post using their name.

I found out early on that Usenet is taken too seriously by kooks so I
use an alias.

Posts should and do stand or fail by the validity of their content. It
has nothing to do with the poster's name.

I completely agree with you that portraying cycling as being more
dangerous than it actually is does a disservice to all.

I also agree with whozits' contention that cycling in traffic requires
an appreciation and acknowledgment of the potential dangers involved
when mixing it up with errant scuds and other stunned turds.

You have to be on top of your game to survive because you can't count
on others to watch out for you. That's true in all endeavours though,
not just cycling.
--
zk

But you, as Zook Katz, have been around a long time and you have build
up a reputation. I've seen a correpondent in another ng with a name
like x34@canoe. I'm pretty sure that's not his name but anyone who
knows the ng will respect his opinions.

An newbie without a name does not have a lot of credibility.

John Kane
Kingston ON

Zoot Katz said:

I found out early on that Usenet is taken too seriously by kooks so I
use an alias.

KOOKS? What kind of kooks? Your run of the mill kooks or the psycho
kind? How do I get all my posts taken off this thing?

Maggie

Quoted message said:

And, of course, there is no believable evidence they are of any use in
a serious accident.

What are you, nuts?

I guess it depends on how you define serious. They won't protect you
from decapitation, and that would be a serious accident in anyone's
book.

But if you have an accident, hitting your helmeted head on the ground
and not getting injured, then it isn't a serious accident, even though
if you had the same accident without a helmet you might have a skull
fracture or worse.

So you're right. There is no evidence that they are of any use in a
serious accident.

Funny how most of the serious accidents keep happening to people who
don't wear helmets.

Hmmmmmmm.

Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0500,
<[email hidden]>,
ookook <kookoo> wrote, in part:

Quoted message said:

Funny how most of the serious accidents keep happening to people who
don't wear helmets.

When it happens to _me_ it's a serious accident. Other people's
accidents are minor if not trivial. It's not got anything to do with
head gear.
--
zk

3 Jun 2005 12:03:07 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,
"Maggie" <[email hidden]> wrote, in part

Quoted message said:

What kind of kooks? Your run of the mill kooks or the psycho
kind?

The kind who phone you at 3:00 in the morning to make threats because
you unwittingly x-posted something off-topic to "their" newsgroup.
They're sorta like our net-nanny Bill S. but more talented at reading
headers.

It was this newbie's baptism by fire.
--
zk

Jeff Starr asked:

Quoted message said:

What's up with the constant jibes about being an "anonymous bike
messenger"?

He does it because he's wrong, he has no data, and this
is his last resort.

This same discussion has actually been recurring for
years on this ng. Sometimes nearly word for word.
The same pattern develops every time: I dare to impugn
Frank's 'data' on the relative danger of cycling, and
Frank attacks...me.

He has never offered any coherent defense of his
'data.' No such defense is possible.

It's just that I'm the one who dares take a bite out
of Frank's Wish Sandwich. If I happened to be a garbage
collector, Frank's argument of last resort would be
"Oh, and I suppose we are to accept the opinion of an
anonymous garbage collector blah blah blah..."

Quoted message said:

If anything, being a bike messenger would lend credibility to his
practical experience.

FWIW, any random anonymous bike messenger with ten years
or so on the job will accumulate at least twice as much
time in the saddle as Frank has in his enthusiastic
30 years.

Robert

ookook said:

Quoted message said:

And, of course, there is no believable evidence they are of any use in
a serious accident.

What are you, nuts?

I guess it depends on how you define serious. They won't protect you
from decapitation, and that would be a serious accident in anyone's
book.

But if you have an accident, hitting your helmeted head on the ground
and not getting injured, then it isn't a serious accident, even though
if you had the same accident without a helmet you might have a skull
fracture or worse.

Oh, sure. And that happens a _lot_ to cyclists, does it? More often
than to anyone else, I suppose?

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you have an accident, hitting your helmeted head on the ground
and not getting injured, then it isn't a serious accident, even though
if you had the same accident without a helmet you might have a skull
fracture or worse.

Oh, sure. And that happens a _lot_ to cyclists, does it? More often
than to anyone else, I suppose?

What hitting your head on the ground? I suspect it happens to
cyclists more than walkers, runners, tennis players, basketball
players, etc.

!"On 3 Jun 2005 13:51:56 -0700, [email hidden] wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's up with the constant jibes about being an "anonymous bike
messenger"?

Quoted message said:

He does it because he's wrong, he has no data, and this
is his last resort.

ROFLMAO! You can accuse Frank of all kinds of things, some of them
legitimately, but having no data? Come on! Frank has one of the
largest collections of data I know of - and he cites authorities for
pretty much everything!

You are of course free to assert that your experience as an
unrepresentative kind of cyclist trumps the calculations of actuaries,
that is your right, but "no data"? That's plain old-fashioned
head-in-the-sand denial!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's up with the constant jibes about being an "anonymous bike
messenger"?

Quoted message said:

He does it because he's wrong, he has no data, and this
is his last resort.

ROFLMAO! You can accuse Frank of all kinds of things, some of them
legitimately, but having no data? Come on! Frank has one of the
largest collections of data I know of - and he cites authorities for
pretty much everything!

You are of course free to assert that your experience as an
unrepresentative kind of cyclist trumps the calculations of actuaries,
that is your right, but "no data"? That's plain old-fashioned
head-in-the-sand denial!

Guy

Yeah, that pretty well sums up Robert (r15xx) - he now has to resort to grossly misrepresenting Frank with this completely perverse claim about lack of data.

That's the typical resort of those so committed to a wrong position that they have to misrepresent their opponent - rather than accede to the fact that their position is wrong.

Robert may try to pass himself off as a acute thinker but misrepresenting others isn't needed in the repertoire of truly critically intelligent and honest thinkers.

Roger

I submit that on or about Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:39:21 -0500, the person
known to the court as ookook <kookoo> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Wow! Lots of data. I stand corrected. Thank you all for setting me
straight.

De nada. We are all victims of a "conspiracy of ignorance
masquerading as common sense" - if it helps you to know this, I, too,
started out as a helmet advocate until I was corrected on Usenet :-)

From a helmet advocate I have become a sceptic, I am a member of the
Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (http://www.cyclehelmets.org). I
was duped by the "BIKE DANGER!" idiots, and I'm mad as hell about it!

Quoted message said:

I grew up not wearing a helmet when I rode my bike. Bicycle helmets
didn't exist back then. Neither did elbow and knee pads for other
activities like skating, etc. It taught kids including me to respect
gravity at an early age. I remember buying my first bike helmet when
I was in my 20s. It was weird.

Same for me. When did cycling suddenly become this massively
dangerous and scary activity? Maybe I was out on the bike at the time
and didn't notice the change...

Quoted message said:

I had one bike crash when I hit my head on the concrete and cracked my
helmet. I'm pretty sure that I would have been in pretty bad shape
had I not worn the helmet. As it was, I had some road rash and a few
cuts. My right arm and leg were nonfunctional for a few minutes, but
it didn't scare me much until much later because I was completely
dazed at the time of the wreck.

I had a similar crash. My protective headgear certainly Saved My
Life[tm] - it was a knitted acrylic balaclava. I recommend that all
cyclists wear a knitted acrylic balaclava at all times... :-D

Quoted message said:

When I reread everythng I wrote above, it sounds sarcastic. I am not
trying to be sarcastic. I am a firm believer in statistics. One
accident, whether it happened to me or someone else is not
statistically significant. I concede the argument. My previous
stance was not based on fact, but on opinion. I consider myself a
victim of media scare tactics.

Absolutely, and well done for recognising it. We are doing something
safe and healthy - those saying otherwise mainly don't ride bikes.
Part of the problem is that lots of folks know deep down that they
should take more exercise, and that active travel is beneficial in
multiple ways, but they are too lazy; lazy is bad, so they look around
for some rationalisation and find "scary bike danger" [censored] from the
helmet lobby, that's enough to give them the excuse they are looking
for. I think the Liddites should STFU and get on with promoting
things that genuinely make cycling safer, like training schemes and
promoting cycling.

Quoted message said:

You'll not hear another peep out of me on the subject of helmets.
I may even stop wearing one for casual riding. I think I'll keep
wearing it for off-road riding though. I go down a lot when I am
riding trails...

And those are exactly the kinds of crash for which helmets were
designed: low speed, no other vehicle involved. So what if the
consequences are rarely more than an ouchie?

I salute your open-mindedness. It took me a lot longer...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound