I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
It's kind of funny. Krygowski has been campaigning against helmets for
years and hasn't convinced anyone. Most of those of us who don't wear
helmets were doing it long before he changed his mind about them and
began talking about it.
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:36:02 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
+1
I would never use a helmet. Not in this climate. It's too hot,
my hair would become pudding.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically for running.
God ? LOL.
Our "system" was "designed" to walk on all fours. Divide the
weight among 4 limbs.
Then tens of thousands of years ago a right-wing monkey
decided to show the others it was bigger and better and stood up. Put
it on social media and it became a "thing". Everyone wanted to be
"bigger and better".
Half the others voted to make it mandatory. And it still is...
Which is why knees and feet wear out so much and people
complain of lumbago.
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
hesitation. So Saturday I will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not because I am living proof that at least they do some good. And IFrank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home around four turns without
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically
for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have given us
bicycles. ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not the case with
any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to induce
brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the ground are
strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I sincerely plan to
start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80 onwards and not to ride an
upright bicycle when drunk (on the recumbent, the distance to ground is halved) ;-)
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to induce
brain injury.
So much fear mongering!
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:45:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:43 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski? wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should
be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've
backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty
"leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving"
apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that
all runners should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed
your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God
specifically for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have
given us bicycles.? ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not
the case with any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three
moving on-road falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head
injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head,
and certainly never hard enough to induce brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the
ground are strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I
sincerely plan to start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80
onwards and not to ride an upright bicycle when drunk (on
the recumbent, the distance to ground is halved) ;-)
Rolf
Nice risk assessment!
Personally, I've walked away from more serious auto wrecks
than from bicycle crashes so, for me at any rate, cycling is
safer.
Death by auto accident is pretty common.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:04:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
You had a concussion in 2010.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/>
"I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries"
Wavecel was founded in 2016. There is no way anyone associated with
Wavecel could or would talk to you about their product in 2010 because
it didn't exist in 2010. If the inventor(s) did a public disclosure
more than 12 months prior to when the patent was issued (2016), they
would risk having the invention considered as prior art.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >> be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018" ><https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm> ><https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and >adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during >2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System ><https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:43 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
About 30 years ago, I was riding my bicycle when I collided with a
dentist and his Pontiac going in the opposite direction. He ran the
stop sign while I was on the wrong side of the road. I slid over the
Pontiac hood, bounced off the windshield, again slid over the hood in
the opposite direction, and landed on my back in the roadway. I don't
recall if I was wearing a helmet. Probably not. An ambulance
appeared from somewhere. I was strapped to a backboard and delivered
to the ER at a local hospital. While still strapped to the backboard,
the CHP (California Highway Patrol) arrived and handed me an expensive traffic ticket. They ran a CT scan, didn't find anything interesting
and released me. By this time, the muscles in my back went on strike
and painfully refused to cooperate. There was no mention or
indications of a brain injury.
Fast forward about 4 years and I'm doing computer service for the
hospital in the ER. (The ER was moved 3 times in 4 or 5 years). I
looked at my records and found that they showed that I had experienced
a TBI (traumatic brain injury). My best guess(tm) is that someone had "reviewed" my records and made a "correction".
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
"That which is obvious, beyond any need of checking, is usually
wrong."
"Assumption. The mother of all mistakes".
"When someone claims they're joking, take a closer look to see what
they're hiding".
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use >brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's >available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that >helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm
" Because bicycling continues to grow in popularity,* primarily among
U.S. adults, examining the strategies that mitigate the risk for TBI
is important. CDC analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) to determine the
incidence of EDs for bicycle-related TBIs during 2009?2018. An
estimated 596,972 ED visits for bicycle-related TBIs occurred in the
United States during the study period."
On 3/24/2025 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm
" Because bicycling continues to grow in popularity,* primarily among
U.S. adults, examining the strategies that mitigate the risk for TBI
is important. CDC analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) to determine the incidence of EDs for bicycle-related TBIs during 2009?2018. An
estimated 596,972 ED visits for bicycle-related TBIs occurred in the
United States during the study period."
Look up the number for other activities, John. Context is important.
America is a big, big place. All numbers are big. And all big numbers
are scary for certain people, especially when taken out of context.
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:00:11 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
"We make every effort to produce as many items as possible in
our Pittsburgh office, but unfortunately gloves are one exception. We
just do not have the production capacity or specialized machines
necessary and so our gloves are imported. These gloves are
manufactured in Pakistan by a trusted partner that we've worked with
for well over a decade."
Maybe they had trouble hiring "illegals" to do the hard work,
so they outsourced it to a place "illegals" come from.
Now what does that remind me of?
MAGA hats come with a "Made In America" tag too.
"We make every effort to produce as many items as possible in
our Dallas, Texas office, but unfortunately MAGA hats are one
exception. We just do not have the production capacity or specialized machines necessary and so our hats are imported. These hats are
manufactured in China by a trusted partner that we've worked with for
well over a decade."
LOL
On 3/25/2025 4:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:13:27 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the world, but >>>> does this apply to our hands as well?
Variations in hand sizes follow shoe sizes. The local hardware store >>> has a wide variety of work and gardening gloves. Mostly, I use gloves >>> for firewood handling. Unfortunately, the only gloves that fit me
properly are Women's Small or Medium. Men's Small fingers are too
long. I became somewhat proficient at altering and stitching the
glove fingers, but at about 2 hrs per pair, I gave up and have
resigned myself to wearing pink, purple and flower design leather
gloves. I have a similar problem with pianos where an octave span is >>> a stretch.
"Whose hands are biggest? You may be surprised."
<https://www.nablu.com/2022/03/whose-hands-are-biggest- you-may-be.html> >>> Scroll down to the table and graph in the middle of the document.
Notice the wide range in hand sizes. The authors sources of data and >>> sample sizes are not very good, but does show that there are
differences in hand sizes.
Hand size is also an issue with smartphone screen sizes:
"How Large is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of Smartphone Comfort >>> Perception and Preference between Germans and Chinese"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2351978915003558>
Going on an assumption with dubious evidence, Andrews demographics
stereo typically are from eastern Europe. Id also assume therefore
that his customers hands are therefore on the large size according to
the Nablu page.
At our prior location customers skewed younger; tall with big hands and feet. Here, our rural customers are more likely to actually work with their hands rather than shuffling a mouse around for a half day. That's
a bigger difference than national trends IMHO.
Wider deviations from the median should be expected from a smaller data
set.
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
The older I get the faster I get at riding slow. After my crash last May and broken collarbone and 2 metacarpals on my hand, I take a bit
different approach. Riding will never be quite the same as it was and I fear gravel, loose rock, and I am clumsy to boot.
I've ridden in only two road races, decades and decades ago. They were
small local events organized by a local high school coach. We expected
only locals would enter, most of whom would be friends of mine. But word
of the race got out to some racers from the big city about 60 miles away.
So my friends and I were on our mid-range Raleighs with clincher tires wearing maybe Bata Bikers and gym shorts; and here come these six or
seven guys with super light bikes, racing cleats and tubular tires.
One guy in particular had thighs as thick as oak trees, hugely muscular.
I figured if he were anywhere near the front, nobody could possibly
outsprint him.
But he was never anywhere near the front, because just a few miles into
the race, there was a sharp left turn. He braked really, really hard and yelled "Gravel!! Gravel!!" at the top of his lungs. He never caught up
with the pack.
Another one of those guys (whom I had briefly met) was a kind of ladies'
man. He hung back to flirt with some of the ladies (um, including my
wife) figuring he would easily catch us. But as he later said, our
paceline was "like a steam train." He tried to reel us in, but like Oak
Tree Thighs, was never able to catch up.
Oh yes I will wear a helmet they don't bother me at all and it is a
great place to hand my review helmet mirror.
That's fine. My mirrors clip onto my glasses so I don't have to bother
with the funny hat.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my
claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes,
etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
"Not preventing a head injury" is different from "causing
ahead injury".
You're welcome
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your
chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light.
Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do
crash more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis on injuries
with vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is, counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting to ER, is built
on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a significant amount of data showing that's not the case. Specifically, people wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
I've already presented several studies that show more parity. You've
been reading old literature.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper.
Yup, a 35 year old paper....that's currently valid alright, no one has
done any substantive work in the area in the last 35 years...<eyeroll>
That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21% wearing helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to helmet fear mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought "Omigosh, I might die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet) strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head. (Evolution, like
of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be efficient, i.e. nothing extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had better insurance coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
In 1989, that was likely the case.
There were other differences between the "cases" and "controls," as well
as between both groups and the general population - as explained here: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is generally the case. Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law (MHL). Crocker's study failed to find significant benefit from helmets, largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed: Alchohol consumption. He found that drinking then riding significantly increased risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet did not have significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This is important, because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not recorded blood alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively know which of the injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
Again, try to keep current:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was an association between alcohol intoxication and the failure
to wear a cycle helmet (p<0.001). However, there was no correlation
between crude mortality and alcohol consumption (3.5%?vs 3.2% NS); this
was true for those wearing a helmet (2.4% vs 1.8%) at the point of
injury and those not (6% vs 3.8%)"
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm
wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but
I'll probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people
post here that they would never do the risky mountain biking they do
without the helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that
busy road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a place, but it isn't
in the discussion of whether helmets are protective or not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical effectiveness, you're correct.
Thank you
If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a person takes additional risks because of overestimating his invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all helmet promotion is intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing total injury
rates or counts.
And it does, even with "risk adjusted" studies. From the above study:
"There was an increased crude 30-day mortality in the group not wearing
a cycle helmet 5.6% (4.8%?6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%?2.2%) (p<0.001); corresponding risk adjusted excess survival rates
(W scores)22 were 1.1 (?0.1 to 2.2) and 2.4 (1.3?3.6), respectively."
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets _prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent it.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be
over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact),
it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far
more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least
an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause
more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite.
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years >>>>>>> shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe-while- >>>> biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>> either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
On 3/26/2025 12:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 9:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.
Example: "You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
I have. I'm sure I pay more attention to this issue than you do.
Then prove it.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders >>>>>> naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my >>>>> claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've >>>> ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka >> waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop
feature. And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they restart the mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you can downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures
the time from start to finish regardless of speed.
It?s called auto pause and within each activity profile, I leave it off as don?t want it paused during slow speed tricky MTB stuff as Strava and
indeed Garmin connect will make average speed calculations ie remove the
cafe stops and so on.
Unless your riding has no cafe stops? Or no waiting for mates to ride together or no traffic lights or stops in general, it?s a very poor way of displaying average speed, for example I often do a gravel ride to the pub
on a Wednesday, and spend a hour or more with mates there.
If you have a the Garmin set to no auto pause or don?t use Garmin Connect
or Strava to process the rides and calculate average speed etc, all your doing is measuring cafe stops and other non performance metrics which is isn?t remotely relevant!
Your averages on Garmin connect will be much more accurate as they don?t measure faff and cafe time, ie how fast or not your riding.
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders >>>>>> naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my >>>>> claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've >>>> ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka >> waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop feature.
lol...wow...._ALL_ Garmin cycling computers have an autopause function, They've had that feature since Garmin first released cycling computers
in 2006.
830 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge830/EN-US/Edge_830_OM_EN-US.pdf
Page 54
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when
you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving. ? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed
drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 51).
1030 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge1030/EN-US/Edge_1030_OM_EN-US.pdf
Page 53
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when
you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving. ? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed
drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 50).
And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they restart the mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you can
downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures the
time from start to finish regardless of speed.
To be more clear, not longer but rather more massive. By
hands are huge compared to my brothers' who are all taller.
None of them do much manual work. Mine are indeed shorter
but bulky, something customers notice in that they can't
squeeze their fat fingers into a medium glove.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves, jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of that
kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
Did all those prior avid cyclists somehow not notice that their buddies
were getting brain injured? Nope, it was never a sizeable problem. Now
it's an "Omigosh!" serious risk.
40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a number
of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the helmet.
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet. (I can relate the incidents yet again, if you
like.)
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing strategy -
a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're advised to immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And some companies still claim you should replace it every few years, just in case... or
because they want the sales.
What other device do you own that has those same caracteristics?
I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I _do_
know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees, signposts, asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have required trips to the
ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one.
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking about normal riding, which for most people never involves any of those
inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider revising
my riding style.
It's a risk of competition that I'm willing to take. I have scar tissue
on both hands, wrists, elbows, shoulders, knees, and hips.the only
revision to my 'style' imho is to keep pushing the envelope so I can
handle the bike in sketchy situations. My philosphy for mountain biking
is 'if I don't crash at least once, I'm not riding hard enough'.
I'm actually quite lucky, the only broken bones (so far) are a right
middle phalange and my nose. Other people I race with have fared far
worse, one has broken both collar bones and a few ribs, another friend shattered his pelvis. Both of them are (were) cat 2 racers with far
better race results than I ever came close to achieving. Maybe I should counsel them to stop wearing helmets and revise their riding styles?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:50:06 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>Trek introduced me to the Wavecell in 2020. How does that fit your invention of time tables?
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 21:35:40 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:04:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
You had a concussion in 2010.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/> >> "I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries"
Wavecel was founded in 2016. There is no way anyone associated with
Wavecel could or would talk to you about their product in 2010 because
it didn't exist in 2010. If the inventor(s) did a public disclosure
more than 12 months prior to when the patent was issued (2016), they
would risk having the invention considered as prior art.
Liebermann, we already know that you're missing a few rocks out of a full load. Is there some reason you cannot understand that I am recommending the Wavecel BECAUSE the old fashion foam helmet I was wearing didn't prevent traumatic brain injuries?
I am only interested in your claim to have "seen Keith since before I
was injured" which would be 2010, which presumably was when Keith
Bontrager told you all about Wavecel.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/>
"I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries."
As far as the general public was concerned, there was no Wavecel
product prior to when it was founded and the patents were issued in
2016. The Wavecel founders would never risk having their patent
invalidated because of a "prior art" claim. Therefore, neither Keith
or the founders discussed the technology with you prior to 2016.
Whatever happened in 2020 is irrelevant.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:05:26 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page". since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
Next time you're chatting to Musk on Twittier, tell him
someone is putting viruses on Federal Government Websites(I mean the
CDC, not the CPSC, that's independent).
Who knows he might do something useful and remove them?
Kaspersky AV is by far the most reliable.... BitDefender
simply ignores government malware.
On 3/25/2025 4:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page".
:-) As always, the links worked for me. Tom, I have no idea what you so consistently do wrong!
On 3/25/2025 4:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page".
That's because you're an idiot
since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
None of those websites have viruses. If they did, my corporate firwewall would block them. They aren't even tagged as 'suspicions'.
We disagree. Most (not all) "case-control" studies _of cyclists
presenting to ER_ indicate some benefit; but again, "cyclists presenting
to ER" are almost by definition different from almost all cyclists. Data regarding all cyclists shows no obvious benefit regarding fatalities or concussions.
The entire reason for examining those samples is to make predictions and recommendations regarding the entire population. We certainly have
enough long term data to show that the predicted benefits of widespread helmet use have not occurred in the general population.
And the low level of actual risk makes the entire exercise pretty
worthless. Researchers should instead be studying the benefits of
helmets on much bigger sources of TBI: motoring and pedestrian travel.
Oh, and just walking around one's home, which IIRC causes more TBI than
all the above.
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes of TBI.
And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious risk of TBI.
But you still tell people just riding on roads that they should wear
helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor for people riding in cars, who
dominate the TBI statistics for transportation.
Glad you finally admit your issue is primarily with marketing tactics
On 3/25/2025 4:58 PM, cyclintom wrote:
While the tests of Wavecell by specialists is pretty conclusive the only hard evidence is statistical analysis which requires a pretty long time with bicycles since there are so few really serious injuries.
There are so few really serious injuries. But the propaganda machine
will insist that you're very likely to die if you leave your driveway
without a styrofoam cap.
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do crash
more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets. (No, it's not because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but I'll probably
wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people post here that
they would never do the risky mountain biking they do without the
helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that busy road without
a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is commesurate with the increase in protection. Trouble is, the protection
from a bike helmet is far, far less than people are led to believe. Look
up the standardization test.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far more
brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least an inch
from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing blows,
potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to
reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
That situation is not fantasy. It is exactly what gave rise to Wavecell
and other anti-rotation helmets. But helmet promoters still insist that ordinary helmets are magic.
Lieberman and Liebermann are names deriving from Lieb, a German and
Jewish (Ashkenazic) nickname for a person from the German lieb or
Yiddish lib, meaning 'dear, beloved'.
Dear Beloved? Tom?
On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 01:59:43 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
But then since you don't believe in work,Liebermann must have looked it up and sent it to you.
Nope. You can do your own research. I was busy trying to determine
how you managed to have a "concussion", "crippling injury" or TBI in
2010 when your head never hit the ground.
03/25/2025
Message-ID: <1IAEP.752812$SZca.636071@fx13.iad>
My crippling injury occurred when I fell 2' at only 5 mph.
05/14/2010 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Sgfdk0T4HlI/m/htJl6zQSimgJ> "My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts."
01/06/2023 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/K-cG5lehtd0/m/X3FtbYbXAAAJ> "I am permanently disabled and so is the cop who managed to get me
back from the last step from death."
Plenty more strange cognitive effects found when searching for
"concussion": <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=concussion%20author%3Atom%20author%3Akunich>
On 4/3/2025 11:31 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore. Why do you even bother posting?
I strongly disagree. Jeff is one of the most consistently erudite people posting here. His posts almost always have value. Even the ones where he points out your foolishness, Tom, have value. They save us the trouble
of doing the same.
I wonder if, as a discipline for the rest of Lent at least, you could
give up insulting your betters.
Tom. I've done some things I regret in my life. I try not to look
back, but they're difficult to forget. I prefer to look forward to
the future.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 12:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Apr 3 11:47:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:31 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore. >>>> Why do you even bother posting?
I strongly disagree. Jeff is one of the most consistently erudite people >>> posting here. His posts almost always have value. Even the ones where he >>> points out your foolishness, Tom, have value. They save us the trouble >>> of doing the same.
I wonder if, as a discipline for the rest of Lent at least, you could
give up insulting your betters.
Since my answer to his posting was to point out that his claim was that
the face is not part of the head, I am not at all surprised thaty you
consider him erudite. Apparently you don't believe that ANY protection
for the head is any better than your cycling cap. I guess stupid runs in >> tribes and you, Liebermann and Flunky all wear the same warpaint.
Tom, your constant stream of insults really does not make your targets
look worse. It only makes you look (even) worse.
Indeed it?s a poor look!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 443 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 102:06:58 |
| Calls: | 9,205 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,480 |
| Messages: | 6,053,514 |