The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it
seems to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any
state laws but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize
require this so that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies
done as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I
should. So I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't
bother me in any way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which
is equally as important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair.
I probably would be safer during the day with various types of body
armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen
do not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me
that I am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:I have been around this discussion group for at least 17
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not
sure why it seems to be an individual choice to my
knowledge not require by any state laws but I could be
wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about
any studies done as such or various other situations when
I don't, but maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and
I have no trouble they don't bother me in any way and it
is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I
probably should wear one most of time it is safer
regardless if what U an doing. This would be especially
important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types
of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want
to wear one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair
guitars and some repairmen do not loosen the strings to
adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I am an
expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many
or most of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past
r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the debates about helmets went on so
long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for
almost every ride. At the time, I believed in their
protective value, even though I thought the risk of
actually needing one was very low. My wearing one was
mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose
of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some
people actually referenced relevant data. I think the
person who got me thinking the most about the false claim
of protection was Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an
Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet
promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set,
which she re-analyzed. In material she published and in
these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that
their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike
club was able to force the U.S. government to stop using
T&R's "85%" claim in its documents, including online. It
was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And BTW, since then a
friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero speed
and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple
topple, the helmet did not save him. They are really very,
very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or
two ago, I did have my third ever on-road, moving fall
when a big, high speed dog caused a crash. But using the
helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my cotton cycling cap
obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know
they haven't looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to
present data showing the risk of serious brain injury
while cycling is very, very low - lower than other common
activities for which helmets are never, ever recommended,
like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that
caused me to completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I
haven't worn one for many, many years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let
alone mandates. Why? Because "You should always wear a
helmet" portrays ordinary bicycling as a very dangerous
activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. It's also harmful
to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver!
You knew you were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's
bad for society because it dissuades cycling by making it
seem way more dangerous than it is. Imagine if people were
told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is
far lower than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for
society. So I don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to
pretend it is.
years if not more. I just do not engage in things that are
not pretty directly related to bikes. The threads keep
expanding and really they should start another one. Seems we
don't all get along but really I don't have to time to spend
giving another person I read about a hard time. The only
person I really know to any great lengths at least
personally is Andrew. Otherwise I avoid many threads.
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as
such but frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit.
Naturally these things can happen in many other situations.
So while I think cycling is generally safe so is baseball,
but a a 95 mph fastball taken on the head is not good. We
all have to draw different lines.
That said I think boxing and football are dangerous and
would not recommend or play these sports. I actually like to
watch a great fight but truth be known it is not something I
think smart to do. I hate football so no problems.
On 11/11/2024 7:21 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:I have been around this discussion group for at least 17
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not
sure why it seems to be an individual choice to my
knowledge not require by any state laws but I could be
wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about
any studies done as such or various other situations when
I don't, but maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and
I have no trouble they don't bother me in any way and it
is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I
probably should wear one most of time it is safer
regardless if what U an doing. This would be especially
important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types
of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want
to wear one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair
guitars and some repairmen do not loosen the strings to
adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I am an
expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many
or most of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past
r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the debates about helmets went on so
long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for
almost every ride. At the time, I believed in their
protective value, even though I thought the risk of
actually needing one was very low. My wearing one was
mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose
of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some
people actually referenced relevant data. I think the
person who got me thinking the most about the false claim
of protection was Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an
Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet
promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set,
which she re-analyzed. In material she published and in
these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that
their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike
club was able to force the U.S. government to stop using
T&R's "85%" claim in its documents, including online. It
was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And BTW, since then a
friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero speed
and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple
topple, the helmet did not save him. They are really very,
very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or
two ago, I did have my third ever on-road, moving fall
when a big, high speed dog caused a crash. But using the
helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my cotton cycling cap
obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know
they haven't looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to
present data showing the risk of serious brain injury
while cycling is very, very low - lower than other common
activities for which helmets are never, ever recommended,
like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that
caused me to completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I
haven't worn one for many, many years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let
alone mandates. Why? Because "You should always wear a
helmet" portrays ordinary bicycling as a very dangerous
activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. It's also harmful
to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver!
You knew you were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's
bad for society because it dissuades cycling by making it
seem way more dangerous than it is. Imagine if people were
told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is
far lower than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for
society. So I don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to
pretend it is.
years if not more. I just do not engage in things that are
not pretty directly related to bikes. The threads keep
expanding and really they should start another one. Seems we
don't all get along but really I don't have to time to spend
giving another person I read about a hard time. The only
person I really know to any great lengths at least
personally is Andrew. Otherwise I avoid many threads.
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as
such but frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit.
Naturally these things can happen in many other situations.
So while I think cycling is generally safe so is baseball,
but a a 95 mph fastball taken on the head is not good. We
all have to draw different lines.
That said I think boxing and football are dangerous and
would not recommend or play these sports. I actually like to
watch a great fight but truth be known it is not something I
think smart to do. I hate football so no problems.
Well done.
I choose not to wear one but, as with so many things
discussed here, we can all agree on the objective facts,
known possibilities and probabilities and yet make very
different personal decisions to our own personal situation.
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous >helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many >years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:I have been around this discussion group for at least 17 years if not
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it
seems to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any
state laws but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize
require this so that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies
done as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I
should. So I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't
bother me in any way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror
which is equally as important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your
hair. I probably would be safer during the day with various types of
body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen
do not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me
that I am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take
the tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the
famous helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she
re-analyzed. In material she published and in these discussion groups,
she showed conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was
able to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in
its documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge.
And BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at
zero speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple
topple, the helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little
protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very
low - lower than other common activities for which helmets are never,
ever recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many,
many years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
more. I just do not engage in things that are not pretty directly
related to bikes. The threads keep expanding and really they should
start another one. Seems we don't all get along but really I don't have
to time to spend giving another person I read about a hard time. The
only person I really know to any great lengths at least personally is
Andrew. Otherwise I avoid many threads.
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as such but
frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit. Naturally these things
can happen in many other situations.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems >>> to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws >>> but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done >>> as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So >>> I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I >>> probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do >>> not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I >>> am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed
conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its
documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few
others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:30:06 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:28:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:21 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not
sure why it seems to be an individual choice to my
knowledge not require by any state laws but I could be
wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about
any studies done as such or various other situations when
I don't, but maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and
I have no trouble they don't bother me in any way and it
is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I
probably should wear one most of time it is safer
regardless if what U an doing. This would be especially
important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types
of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want
to wear one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair
guitars and some repairmen do not loosen the strings to
adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I am an
expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many
or most of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past
r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the debates about helmets went on so
long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for
almost every ride. At the time, I believed in their
protective value, even though I thought the risk of
actually needing one was very low. My wearing one was
mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose
of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some
people actually referenced relevant data. I think the
person who got me thinking the most about the false claim
of protection was Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an
Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet
promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set,
which she re-analyzed. In material she published and in
these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that
their results were garbage.
Yup The data guy... Coming from a bloke who ignores all the other
studies of bike helmets published since the Thompson & Rivara paper.
All of which show a lower but still useful reduction in deaths and
injuries for wearing a helmet
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems >>>> to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws >>>> but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done >>>> as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So >>>> I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any >>>> way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I >>>> probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor >>>> too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do >>>> not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I >>>> am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension >>>> off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars." >>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed
conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its
documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low >>> - lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many >>> years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!" >>>
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few
others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip";
I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from
saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of
the words before they were twisted.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems >>>>> to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws >>>>> but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done >>>>> as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So >>>>> I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any >>>>> way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This >>>>> would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I >>>>> probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor >>>>> too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do >>>>> not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I >>>>> am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension >>>>> off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars." >>>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >>>> thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why >>>> not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous >>>> helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction >>>> in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed. >>>> In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed
conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able >>>> to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its
documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the >>>> helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection! >>>>
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog >>>> caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >>>> showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low >>>> - lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >>>> recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >>>> completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many >>>> years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates. >>>> Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >>>> dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!" >>>>
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >>people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few
others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >>play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >>because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip";
I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from
saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >>twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of
the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists
I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban
areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my
comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around
me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side
paths because they're dangerous.
Am 12.11.2024 um 11:04 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:30:06 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:28:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:21 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not
sure why it seems to be an individual choice to my
knowledge not require by any state laws but I could be
wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about
any studies done as such or various other situations when
I don't, but maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and
I have no trouble they don't bother me in any way and it
is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I
probably should wear one most of time it is safer
regardless if what U an doing. This would be especially
important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types
of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want
to wear one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair
guitars and some repairmen do not loosen the strings to
adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I am an
expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many
or most of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past
r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the debates about helmets went on so
long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for
almost every ride. At the time, I believed in their
protective value, even though I thought the risk of
actually needing one was very low. My wearing one was
mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose
of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some
people actually referenced relevant data. I think the
person who got me thinking the most about the false claim
of protection was Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an
Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet
promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set,
which she re-analyzed. In material she published and in
these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that
their results were garbage.
Yup The data guy... Coming from a bloke who ignores all the other
studies of bike helmets published since the Thompson & Rivara paper.
All of which show a lower but still useful reduction in deaths and
injuries for wearing a helmet
Yes, the non-data guy fails to understand the limited value of hospital studies not replicated by population studies. I don't blame him because
he never learned the difference.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:30:06 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:28:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:21 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not
sure why it seems to be an individual choice to my
knowledge not require by any state laws but I could be
wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about
any studies done as such or various other situations when
I don't, but maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and
I have no trouble they don't bother me in any way and it
is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I
probably should wear one most of time it is safer
regardless if what U an doing. This would be especially
important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types
of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want
to wear one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair
guitars and some repairmen do not loosen the strings to
adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I am an
expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the
tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do
this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many
or most of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past
r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the debates about helmets went on so
long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for
almost every ride. At the time, I believed in their
protective value, even though I thought the risk of
actually needing one was very low. My wearing one was
mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose
of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some
people actually referenced relevant data. I think the
person who got me thinking the most about the false claim
of protection was Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an
Australian research statistician. After the famous helmet
promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85%
reduction in head injuries, she asked for their data set,
which she re-analyzed. In material she published and in
these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that
their results were garbage.
Yup The data guy... Coming from a bloke who ignores all the other
studies of bike helmets published since the Thompson & Rivara paper.
All of which show a lower but still useful reduction in deaths and
injuries for wearing a helmet
Much other froth deleted.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems >>>>>> to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws >>>>>> but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done >>>>>> as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So >>>>>> I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any >>>>>> way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This >>>>>> would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I >>>>>> probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor >>>>>> too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do >>>>>> not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I >>>>>> am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension >>>>>> off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of >>>>> us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars." >>>>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every >>>>> ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >>>>> thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one >>>>> was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why >>>>> not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy >>>>> (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous >>>>> helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction >>>>> in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed. >>>>> In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able >>>>> to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its
documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero >>>>> speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the >>>>> helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection! >>>>>
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I >>>>> did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog >>>>> caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my >>>>> cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't >>>>> looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >>>>> showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low >>>>> - lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >>>>> recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >>>>> completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many >>>>> years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates. >>>>> Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >>>>> dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is.
Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!" >>>>>
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >>> people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few
others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority >>> of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >>> play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet
because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip";
I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from
saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love
twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of
the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists
I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban
areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my
comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around
me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side
paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where
I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any >>>>>>> way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This >>>>>>> would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor >>>>>>> too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension >>>>>>> off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of >>>>>> us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every >>>>>> ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >>>>>> thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one >>>>>> was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why >>>>>> not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy >>>>>> (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous >>>>>> helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction >>>>>> in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed. >>>>>> In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able >>>>>> to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero >>>>>> speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the >>>>>> helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection! >>>>>>
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I >>>>>> did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog >>>>>> caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my >>>>>> cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't >>>>>> looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >>>>>> showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low >>>>>> - lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >>>>>> recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >>>>>> completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many >>>>>> years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates. >>>>>> Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary
bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >>>>>> dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >>>> people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few
others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority >>>> of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >>>> play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile >>>> to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >>>> because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip";
I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from
saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >>>> twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of
the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists
I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban
areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my
comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around
me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side
paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on
streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where
I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes, >which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany
with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of >legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how
real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
Which is why people evaluate their own personal risk for their own
situation in their own way.
We probably all agree that for most small spills, a head injury is a
very remote possibility even for frail/infirm riders: https://cdn01.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2022/06/joe- biden-fine-after-falling-off-his-bike.jpg
Yes, possible but not very likely.
And we likely all agree that in a high speed direct impact, no
protection is adequate (except maybe a St Christopher medal, but I don't
know that) and those are often fatal, helmet or not:
https://headtopics.com/us/retired-police-chief-on-bike-deliberately-hit- by-teen-driver-video-shows-44508172
Between those, some events will be mitigated by a helmet, from fewer
scrapes and bruises to less severe concussion.
Which is why people evaluate their own personal risk for their own
situation in their own way.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
On 11/11/2024 8:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
<snip>
Just to save everyone some time, Frank just wrote a 556 word
condescending essay to say "no".
On 11/12/2024 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
We probably all agree that for most small spills, a head injury is a
very remote possibility even for frail/infirm riders:
https://cdn01.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2022/06/joe-
biden-fine-after-falling-off-his-bike.jpg
Yes, possible but not very likely.
And we likely all agree that in a high speed direct impact, no
protection is adequate (except maybe a St Christopher medal, but I don't
know that) and those are often fatal, helmet or not:
https://headtopics.com/us/retired-police-chief-on-bike-deliberately-hit-
by-teen-driver-video-shows-44508172
Between those, some events will be mitigated by a helmet, from fewer
scrapes and bruises to less severe concussion.
Which is why people evaluate their own personal risk for their own
situation in their own way.
One problem is that people almost always evaluate their own personal
risk based on the information that has been pushed to them.
Since for 40
years they've heard that bicycling without a helmet is a huge risk of
death, they have hugely exaggerated fears.
To put it more bluntly, manufacturers and do-gooders have pushed
propaganda, to the detriment of cycling and society.
On 11/12/2024 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Which is why people evaluate their own personal risk for their own
situation in their own way.
I meant to add: I just finished a rigorous hike with a group of friends.
At one point, I somehow tripped and fell to the ground, full body contact.
That's probably the closest I've come to a serious head injury in years.
And it's closely related to the most common source of serious brain
injuries - walking and falling in one's home. Yet not one person on the
hike said "You [or we] should have been wearing a helmet."
On 11/12/2024 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Wrong, of course. Could you consider trying to learn about a subject
before making proclamations?
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
Of course, you're distorting what I've said. But you won't be honest
enough to accurately quote me.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I have been around this discussion group for at least 17 years if not
more. I just do not engage in things that are not pretty directly
related to bikes.
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as such but
frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit. Naturally these things
can happen in many other situations. So while I think cycling is
generally safe so is baseball, but a a 95 mph fastball taken on the head
is not good. We all have to draw different lines.
On 11/12/2024 1:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:43:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Wrong, of course. Could you consider trying to learn about a subject
before making proclamations?
According to a Gallop Poll, it was 50% in 2012 and increasing.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm#usage
Your source is the world's most dedicated pro-helmet propaganda source.
And yet it begins with the following quote: "Half (50%) of bicyclists
wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for
all or most trips."
For a less biased source try this: >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5189688/
"Results = Among adults, 21% rode bicycles within the past 30 days and
29% always wore helmets. Respondents reported that, of the 61% of
children who rode bicycles within the past 30 days, 42% always wore
helmets. Children were more likely to always wear helmets (90%) when
their adult respondents always wore helmets than when their adult
respondents did not always wear helmets (38%). Children who lived in
states with a child bicycle helmet law were more likely to always wear >helmets (47%) than those in states without a law (39%)."
That matches two years of counting I did locally.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
Of course, you're distorting what I've said. But you won't be honest
enough to accurately quote me.
I recall you saying that you complained to the local government about
how dangerous a bicycle bike path was. Am I wrong about that?
You are wrong about that. Dig up the exact quote of what I said. And try
to keep from yapping at every post I make. Your obsession is unbecoming.
On 11/12/2024 1:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:43:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Wrong, of course. Could you consider trying to learn about a subject
before making proclamations?
According to a Gallop Poll, it was 50% in 2012 and increasing.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm#usage
Your source is the world's most dedicated pro-helmet propaganda source.
And yet it begins with the following quote: "Half (50%) of bicyclists
wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for
all or most trips."
For a less biased source try this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5189688/
"Results = Among adults, 21% rode bicycles within the past 30 days and
29% always wore helmets. Respondents reported that, of the 61% of
children who rode bicycles within the past 30 days, 42% always wore
helmets. Children were more likely to always wear helmets (90%) when
their adult respondents always wore helmets than when their adult
respondents did not always wear helmets (38%). Children who lived in
states with a child bicycle helmet law were more likely to always wear helmets (47%) than those in states without a law (39%)."
That matches two years of counting I did locally.
You are wrong about that. Dig up the exact quote of what I said. And try
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
Of course, you're distorting what I've said. But you won't be honest
enough to accurately quote me.
I recall you saying that you complained to the local government about
how dangerous a bicycle bike path was. Am I wrong about that?
to keep from yapping at every post I make. Your obsession is unbecoming.
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of >>>>>>> us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any >>>>>>>> way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This >>>>>>>> would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every >>>>>>> ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >>>>>>> thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one >>>>>>> was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why >>>>>>> not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy >>>>>>> (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous >>>>>>> helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction >>>>>>> in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed. >>>>>>> In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able >>>>>>> to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero >>>>>>> speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the >>>>>>> helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection! >>>>>>>
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I >>>>>>> did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog >>>>>>> caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my >>>>>>> cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't >>>>>>> looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >>>>>>> showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >>>>>>> recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >>>>>>> completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates. >>>>>>> Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >>>>>>> dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or
brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >>>>> people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority >>>>> of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >>>>> play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile >>>>> to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >>>>> because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip"; >>>>> I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from
saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >>>>> twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of >>>>> the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists
I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban
areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my
comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around
me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side
paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on
streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where
I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes, >> which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany
with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of
legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how
real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been
on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:21:03 -0600 schrieb Mark J cleary ><mcleary08@comcast.net>:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
...
I have been around this discussion group for at least 17 years if not >>more. I just do not engage in things that are not pretty directly
related to bikes.
That makes you an expert in all things bicycling, excluding bicycle
helmets, I presume? Sorry, just kidding. Obviously you want to spread
your beliefs, but you vociferously object when other people who have
read the literature and understand the statistics present their
knowledge? Strange.
Frank is around in rec.bicycles.* since at least 1992. Im my archive of >usenet stuff I found one of his postings from a thread titled "A friend
went down" from December 92. My earliest archived posting to >rec.bicycles.misc was three months earlier, a comment in a thread titled >"What Age to start riding?". It was a lengthy article about when and
how our two boys had started cycling some years earlier at an age of
four.
So I'm around in rec.bicycles for at least 32 years.
For various reason, I didn't archive even older usenet postings of mine.
But somebody did, for a few of those. For example a posting to
comp.lang.c from August 1987, more than 37 years ago.
<https://article.olduse.net/%3C9067%40brl-adm.ARPA%3E>
...
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as such but
frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit. Naturally these things >>can happen in many other situations. So while I think cycling is
generally safe so is baseball, but a a 95 mph fastball taken on the head
is not good. We all have to draw different lines.
An so on.
What has this to do with anything? This tells essentialy nothing about >relative or absolute risks. It's all just feelings driven by
amplification in echo chambers.
So please accept that people disagree and present their own knowledge,
when somebody else talks about his or her unfounded beliefs about the >necessity and usefullness of helmets for cycling, preparing the road to >mandatory helmet laws, which, contrary to your belief, unfortunaltely do >exist in some contries.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:America is quite heavily regulated with only 13/50 states having no >legislation which as car centric country isn’t unexpected.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of >>>>>>>> us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>>>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>>>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This >>>>>>>>> would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>>>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every >>>>>>>> ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I >>>>>>>> thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one >>>>>>>> was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why >>>>>>>> not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy >>>>>>>> (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction >>>>>>>> in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed. >>>>>>>> In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero >>>>>>>> speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the >>>>>>>> helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection! >>>>>>>>
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I >>>>>>>> did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog >>>>>>>> caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my >>>>>>>> cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't >>>>>>>> looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data >>>>>>>> showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever >>>>>>>> recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to >>>>>>>> completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates. >>>>>>>> Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it >>>>>>>> dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or >>>>>>> brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk >>>>>> people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over. >>>>>>
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority >>>>>> of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for >>>>>> play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile >>>>>> to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >>>>>> because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets,
possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip"; >>>>>> I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on >>>>>>> bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their
mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from >>>>>> saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >>>>>> twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of >>>>>> the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists >>>>> I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban >>>>> areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my
comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around >>>>> me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side >>>>> paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on >>>> streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where
I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes, >>> which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany >>> with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of
legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how
real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been
on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:26:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 1:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:43:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Wrong, of course. Could you consider trying to learn about a subject
before making proclamations?
According to a Gallop Poll, it was 50% in 2012 and increasing.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm#usage
Your source is the world's most dedicated pro-helmet propaganda source.
Blah, blah, blah...
And yet it begins with the following quote: "Half (50%) of bicyclists
wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for
all or most trips."
50% in 2012 and increasing...
For a less biased source try this:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5189688/
"Results = Among adults, 21% rode bicycles within the past 30 days and
29% always wore helmets. Respondents reported that, of the 61% of
children who rode bicycles within the past 30 days, 42% always wore
helmets. Children were more likely to always wear helmets (90%) when
their adult respondents always wore helmets than when their adult
respondents did not always wear helmets (38%). Children who lived in
states with a child bicycle helmet law were more likely to always wear
helmets (47%) than those in states without a law (39%)."
That matches two years of counting I did locally.
I think I believe gallop polling over your counting...
50% in 2012 and increasing...
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on
bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
Of course, you're distorting what I've said. But you won't be honest
enough to accurately quote me.
I recall you saying that you complained to the local government about
how dangerous a bicycle bike path was. Am I wrong about that?
I don't think I'm wrong. I'll stick with what I said.
You are wrong about that. Dig up the exact quote of what I said. And try
to keep from yapping at every post I make. Your obsession is unbecoming.
I think I respond to your posts less often than you do with you're obsession with Tom. I do recognize that you're attempting to behave yourself, and sometimes you do pretty well.
Like I said, elsewhere, whenever I call you out on your narcissistic behavior, you tone it down for a while and come off as more becoming.
I'm actually providing a no-charge service for you. You should be
thanking me.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 12 Nov 2024 20:28:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:America is quite heavily regulated with only 13/50 states having no
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of >>>>>>>>> us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so >>>>>>>>>> that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should >>>>>>>>>> wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one >>>>>>>>>> then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>>>
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every >>>>>>>>> ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one >>>>>>>>> was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy >>>>>>>>> (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>>>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>>>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero >>>>>>>>> speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I >>>>>>>>> did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my >>>>>>>>> cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't >>>>>>>>> looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>>>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>>>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe. >>>>>>>>> 2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>>>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or >>>>>>>> brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk
people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over. >>>>>>>
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>>>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for
play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile >>>>>>> to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet >>>>>>> because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets, >>>>>>> possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip"; >>>>>>> I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >>>>>>>>That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on >>>>>>>> bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their >>>>>>> mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from >>>>>>> saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love >>>>>>> twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of >>>>>>> the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists >>>>>> I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban >>>>>> areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my >>>>>> comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around >>>>>> me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when
someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side >>>>>> paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on >>>>> streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where >>>>> I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes, >>>> which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany >>>> with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of
legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how >>>> real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been
on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
legislation which as car centric country isnÂ’t unexpected.
Roger Merriman
There are no state helmet laws for adults. There's only a few local
laws.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 12.11.2024 um 02:21 schrieb Mark J cleary:
On 11/11/2024 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:I have been around this discussion group for at least 17 years if
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it
seems to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by
any state laws but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I
realize require this so that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any
studies done as such or various other situations when I don't, but
maybe I should. So I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they
don't bother me in any way and it is place I can hand my helmet
mirror which is equally as important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably
should wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an
doing. This would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to
wash your hair. I probably would be safer during the day with
various types of body armor too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear
one then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some
repairmen do not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When
they tell me that I am an expert and will tell you that this is a
mistake. Take the tension off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers
do not do this......ok.
Mark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most
of us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc)
the debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The
Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost
every ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even
though I thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My
wearing one was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a
big dose of "Why not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people
actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me
thinking the most about the false claim of protection was
Dr. Dorothy (Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research
statistician. After the famous helmet promotion paper by Thompson &
Rivara that claimed 85% reduction in head injuries, she asked for
their data set, which she re-analyzed. In material she published
and in these discussion groups, she showed conclusively that their
results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was
able to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim
in its documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a
judge. And BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his
bike at zero speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that
simple topple, the helmet did not save him. They are really very,
very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago,
I did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high
speed dog caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can
swear that my cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they
haven't looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present
data showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is
very, very low - lower than other common activities for which
helmets are never, ever recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me
to completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for
many, many years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone
mandates. Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays
ordinary bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very
dishonest. It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of
"Well, you shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver!
You knew you were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for
society because it dissuades cycling by making it seem way more
dangerous than it is. Imagine if people were told "Never take a
walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe.
2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far
lower than people have been led to believe.
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So
I don't wear a helmet.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
not more. I just do not engage in things that are not pretty
directly related to bikes. The threads keep expanding and really
they should start another one. Seems we don't all get along but
really I don't have to time to spend giving another person I read
about a hard time. The only person I really know to any great
lengths at least personally is Andrew. Otherwise I avoid many
threads.
On the last note. Cycling in general is not dangerous as such but
frankly I have been hurt a few times quite a bit. Naturally these
things can happen in many other situations.
I don't wear a helmet but looking at the data, I have recommended to
my dad that at age 85 he should wear one because his reflexes of
catching a fall with his arms are not as good as 10 years ago.
I have also recommended to my mum that it might be meaningful to wear
a helmet when climbing stairs.
Both have blissfully ignored me (my mum also ignored my brother when
he as a doctor talks about the urgency of a cataract operation to
improve safe walking).
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 20:28:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Seem to be quite a few cities and areas, that require helmets even a
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:America is quite heavily regulated with only 13/50 states having no
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as >>>>>>>>>>> important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>>>>
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed >>>>>>>>>> conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And >>>>>>>>>> BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest. >>>>>>>>>> It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you >>>>>>>>>> were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe. >>>>>>>>>> 2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower >>>>>>>>>> than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or >>>>>>>>> brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk
people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over. >>>>>>>>
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I >>>>>>>>>> don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for
play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet
because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets, >>>>>>>> possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip"; >>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on >>>>>>>>> bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He >>>>>>>>> apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their >>>>>>>> mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from >>>>>>>> saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love
twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of >>>>>>>> the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists >>>>>>> I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban >>>>>>> areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my >>>>>>> comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around >>>>>>> me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when >>>>>>> someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side >>>>>>> paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on >>>>>> streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some
street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where >>>>>> I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes,
which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany >>>>> with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of >>>>> legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how >>>>> real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been >>>> on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
legislation which as car centric country isn?t unexpected.
Roger Merriman
There are no state helmet laws for adults. There's only a few local
laws.
cursory glance at any search engine shows that.
Yes the state laws are age restrictions but certainly are all age
legislation in some cities. And the country as whole does have fair amount
of legislation for bike helmets, not aware of any being repealed but this >isn’t my area of expertise!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 11/12/2024 3:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 1:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:43:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet...
Wrong, of course. Could you consider trying to learn about a subject >>>>> before making proclamations?
According to a Gallop Poll, it was 50% in 2012 and increasing.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm#usage
Your source is the world's most dedicated pro-helmet propaganda source.
And yet it begins with the following quote: "Half (50%) of bicyclists
wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for
all or most trips."
For a less biased source try this:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5189688/
"Results = Among adults, 21% rode bicycles within the past 30 days and
29% always wore helmets. Respondents reported that, of the 61% of
children who rode bicycles within the past 30 days, 42% always wore
helmets. Children were more likely to always wear helmets (90%) when
their adult respondents always wore helmets than when their adult
respondents did not always wear helmets (38%). Children who lived in
states with a child bicycle helmet law were more likely to always wear
helmets (47%) than those in states without a law (39%)."
That matches two years of counting I did locally.
Considering how low your local area is for bike riding I’d not sure that’s
worth much. I tend to see a cyclist or two just walking to the
cafe/baker/bike shop which is all of 5 mins away.
Utility cyclists who are by far the most common to encounter, seem to
mostly be with helmets though are exceptions such as the hire bikes which I >> can’t remember ever seen anyone being dedicated enough to take their own >> helmet with them!
I met one of my best (current) friends when she was president of the
local Safe Kids chapter. She came to our club meeting asking us to write
a letter requesting a mandatory helmet law in Ohio. I spoke against that
idea and won. She's since become much, much more reasonable on the
issue. She still wears one religiously, but now considers it a matter of personal and parental choice.
I mention her because she also asked for volunteers to conduct a helmet
use survey of local bicyclists. Of course, she expected a low percentage using helmets, and planned to deliver that horrifying fact to state legislators.
Nobody volunteered for her survey, but it did inspire me to do my own
counts for two different years. Yes, the percentage was low, especially
if one excluded special cycling events. Is the percentage higher in
places with more cycling? Perhaps. But I believe my own counts, the
national survey data documented in my link above, and the quote from the
same source the tricycle rider chose: "Half (50%) of bicyclists
wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for
all or most trips."
Yes, most _avid_ cyclists do wear helmets. Most also wear bright
multicolored jerseys. Fashion is weird and powerful.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:34:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/12/2024 8:44 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Also, I see far too many helmets that are far too old, where the foam
has dried out enough, and as with a damaged helmet, may be incapable of
of providing adequate protection.
Since I live in a dry climate, I'm in the habit of replacing my helmet
every several years, even if there are no obvious indications of damage. >>> Â But that's a preventative thing, of replacement before problems happen >>> rather than waiting until discovery that an older helmet isn't as
capable as I expect it to be.
That shouldn't be a worry. Here's test results from the world's most
prominent pro-helmet propaganda website:
https://helmets.org/up1505a.htm
Yup... your reference was reporting data from https://www.astm.org/get-involved/technical-committees/committee-f08/subcommittee-f08/jurisdiction-f0853
ASTM International
which has some 30,000 members. Are they all members of the pro helmet propaganda web?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 20:53:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Yes but not all, a bad law is bad law even if it doesn’t affect one >personally.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 20:28:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Seem to be quite a few cities and areas, that require helmets even a
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>America is quite heavily regulated with only 13/50 states having no
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the
debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed
conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its
documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you
shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe. >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or >>>>>>>>>>> brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk
people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over. >>>>>>>>>>
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>>>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for
play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet
because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets, >>>>>>>>>> possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip";
I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on >>>>>>>>>>> bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their >>>>>>>>>> mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from >>>>>>>>>> saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love
twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of
the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists >>>>>>>>> I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban >>>>>>>>> areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my >>>>>>>>> comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around >>>>>>>>> me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when >>>>>>>>> someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side >>>>>>>>> paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on >>>>>>>> streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some >>>>>>>> street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where >>>>>>>> I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes,
which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany
with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of >>>>>>> legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how >>>>>>> real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been >>>>>> on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
legislation which as car centric country isn?t unexpected.
Roger Merriman
There are no state helmet laws for adults. There's only a few local
laws.
cursory glance at any search engine shows that.
Yes the state laws are age restrictions but certainly are all age
legislation in some cities. And the country as whole does have fair amount >>> of legislation for bike helmets, not aware of any being repealed but this >>> isn?t my area of expertise!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Most of the helmet laws are for minors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 12 Nov 2024 20:53:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 20:28:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Seem to be quite a few cities and areas, that require helmets even a
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2024 13:29:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>America is quite heavily regulated with only 13/50 states having no
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:45:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:08:09 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:01:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:08 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seemsMark, you must be newer to this discussion group than many or most of
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I
probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok. >>>>>>>>>>>
us. On rec.bicycles.tech (and in the past r.b.soc and r.b.misc) the >>>>>>>>>>> debates about helmets went on so long they were titled "The Helmet Wars."
I entered the discussions as a guy who wore a helmet for almost every
ride. At the time, I believed in their protective value, even though I
thought the risk of actually needing one was very low. My wearing one
was mostly a combination of my wife's request, plus a big dose of "Why
not?"
Thing is, I'm a data guy. And during the helmet wars, some people >>>>>>>>>>> actually referenced relevant data. I think the person who got me >>>>>>>>>>> thinking the most about the false claim of protection was Dr. Dorothy
(Dorre) Robinson, an Australian research statistician. After the famous
helmet promotion paper by Thompson & Rivara that claimed 85% reduction
in head injuries, she asked for their data set, which she re-analyzed.
In material she published and in these discussion groups, she showed
conclusively that their results were garbage.
Oh, and by presenting her logic and data, a Maryland bike club was able
to force the U.S. government to stop using T&R's "85%" claim in its >>>>>>>>>>> documents, including online. It was ruled inaccurate by a judge. And
BTW, since then a friend of mine died by falling off his bike at zero
speed and hitting his helmeted head. Even with that simple topple, the
helmet did not save him. They are really very, very little protection!
(That's despite frequent "saved my life" claims. A year or two ago, I
did have my third ever on-road, moving fall when a big, high speed dog
caused a crash. But using the helmet fan's logic, I can swear that my
cotton cycling cap obviously saved my life!)
So when someone says "It's obviously much safer," I know they haven't
looked into the data enough to learn the facts.
But I think my main contribution to the discussion was to present data
showing the risk of serious brain injury while cycling is very, very low
- lower than other common activities for which helmets are never, ever
recommended, like being a pedestrian.
That's just a sketch of two main points - the points that caused me to
completely stop wearing a bike helmet. I haven't worn one for many, many
years.
But I now argue against even promotion of helmets, let alone mandates.
Why? Because "You should always wear a helmet" portrays ordinary >>>>>>>>>>> bicycling as a very dangerous activity. IMO, that is very dishonest.
It's also harmful to cyclists, leading to an attitude of "Well, you >>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised you got injured by a bad driver! You knew you
were taking a big risk by riding!" And it's bad for society because it
dissuades cycling by making it seem way more dangerous than it is. >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine if people were told "Never take a walk without wearing a helmet!"
TLDR? 1) Helmets are far less protection than people believe. >>>>>>>>>>> 2) The risk of serious head or brain injury from riding is far lower
than people have been led to believe.
There's a nice admission that there is a risk of "serious head or >>>>>>>>>> brain injury from riding."
Sure, accident data show this. Especially people above age 80 and drunk
people have a serious risk of hitting their head when falling over. >>>>>>>>>
3) Promoting helmet use is bad for cycling and bad for society. So I
don't wear a helmet.
The majority of cyclists do wear a helmet, so you and me, and a few >>>>>>>>>> others not wearing one is insignificant as a promotion.
Not even the majority of cyclists in the USA wear helmets. The majority
of cyclists in the USA are use their bikes for day-to-day errands or for
play, not people who use the bicycle for sports. When you cycle a mile
to get into town and then do your errand, next to nobody wears a helmet
because it's just not practical.
Maybe the majority of "serious cyclists" in the USA wear helmets, >>>>>>>>> possibly translated to "people who cycle more than 5 miles per trip"; >>>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with those numbers.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
That's from a guy who says it's too dangerous for him to ride on >>>>>>>>>> bicycle side paths where I see children riding to and from school. He
apparently wants them to ride in traffic.
That's the guy who loves twisting everybody else's words in their >>>>>>>>> mouths. A "relative risk assessment" is completely different from >>>>>>>>> saying "It's too dangerous, I don't dare". But I guess people who love
twisting other peoples' words prefer not to understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>> the words before they were twisted.
I guess I'm speaking from what I see. The vast majority of bicyclists >>>>>>>> I see are wearing a helmet. Granted, I do not very often go to urban >>>>>>>> areas to see what bicyclists there do, so I should have prefaced my >>>>>>>> comment to reflect what I see in the rural and suburban areas around >>>>>>>> me.
As for not understanding words, the meaning is pretty clear when >>>>>>>> someone argues to government officials to stop building bicycle side >>>>>>>> paths because they're dangerous.
I also fully and adamantly support the right of a bicyclist to ride on >>>>>>> streets and roads that do not otherwise limit access, while some >>>>>>> street/road bicyclers adamantly argue against non-vehicle paths where >>>>>>> I prefer to ride.
I don't know why we shouldn't have both.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People worry about it being compulsory be that bike helmets or bike lanes,
which in some instances has happened, Australia with helmets and Germany >>>>>> with bike lanes to various extents plus some states have some sort of >>>>>> legislation?
Rather depends on the place and its legal and cultural norms, as to how >>>>>> real this fear is.
Roger Merriman
I don't believe there's any legitimate effort to ban bikes from
streets and roads in the USA, and helmet mandates for adults have been >>>>> on the wane.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
legislation which as car centric country isn?t unexpected.
Roger Merriman
There are no state helmet laws for adults. There's only a few local
laws.
cursory glance at any search engine shows that.
Yes the state laws are age restrictions but certainly are all age
legislation in some cities. And the country as whole does have fair amount >> of legislation for bike helmets, not aware of any being repealed but this
isnÂ’t my area of expertise!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Most of the helmet laws are for minors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The helmet wearing seems to cause much discussion. Not sure why it seems
to be an individual choice to my knowledge not require by any state laws
but I could be wrong. Some rides organized I realize require this so
that might be when you do or not.
The question is...
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?
My answer is I always wear a helmet. I don't care about any studies done
as such or various other situations when I don't, but maybe I should. So
I ride with a helmet and I have no trouble they don't bother me in any
way and it is place I can hand my helmet mirror which is equally as
important to me.
Now just for the sake of those and their thoughts. I probably should
wear one most of time it is safer regardless if what U an doing. This
would be especially important ihe shower but a pain to wash your hair. I probably would be safer during the day with various types of body armor
too.
Ok flame away. but is just a question. If you don't want to wear one
then don't care don't lecture me. I repair guitars and some repairmen do
not loosen the strings to adjust the truss rod. When they tell me that I
am an expert and will tell you that this is a mistake. Take the tension
off the neck. Some mighty high luthiers do not do this......ok.
--
Deacon Mark
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:48:17 |
| Calls: | 8,133 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,082 |
| Messages: | 5,856,151 |
