Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

On May 23, 4:27 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> > my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> > (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> > bike rides.
>
> With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
> help a whole lot more.

My cars don't have those side curtain airbags. In fact, none of the
cars I've ever owned have had those. In fact, only a tiny percentage
of cars on the road have those. Do yours?

What should we do about the horror of people riding helmetless in cars
without side curtain air bags? This tragedy will be sure to continue
for at least fifteen years, until all cars without completely
inflatable interiors are off the road. (Oh, the humanity!)

And why should we spend hundreds of dollars for sophisticated
explosive air bags and sensitive electronic triggers, when the same
could be achieved by a thin foam hat?

> That web site mentions race car drivers, but
> AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
> curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
> than riding a bicycle.

It certainly is! Because that "steel safety cage" is what causes the
greatest number of the head injury fatalities in America. (Well, that
and the side window glass.) That's what your head impacts during a
car crash.

> There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
> in head-impact crashes on bicycles,

And many better studies showing that entire populations donning
helmets do not demonstrate reduced head injury rates, once you account
for the inevitable drop in cycling.

> and no one disputes the benefits of
> helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
> cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
> disputes it).

Steven, I know you purport to not read my posts - despite occasionally
slipping and responding to them. Bbut surely, it's sunk in by now
that even if 90% of the cyclists in a country wear helmets every time
they ride, the rate of serious head injury does not decrease! The
citations have been given so many times, you should have them
memorized.

Now tell us: Given that the above is true, how do you justify your
statement "no one disputes the benefits of helmets should a head
impact crash occur"?

It seems the possibilities are these:

a) People get into lots more head impact crashes once they start
wearing helmets, and this cancels out their supposed protective
benefits.

b) Helmets protect against some aspects of impact (like, direct
impact at low enough speeds) but worsen other aspects (like, changing
oblique near misses into glancing blows that sharply rotate the brain,
or otherwise increasing the more damaging rotational acceleration).

c) Helmets simply don't help at all, except for impacts that wouldn't
have caused serious injury anyway. They are merely "scratch & bruise"
protection.

Which of those viewpoints do you subscribe to? Or is there some other
explanation?

> Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
> benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?

See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nigel.html

or http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html

I once had a link to the original study, but it seems to have expired.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
>> my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
>> (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
>> bike rides.
>
> With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
> help a whole lot more. That web site mentions race car drivers, but
> AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
> curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
> than riding a bicycle.
>
> There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
> in head-impact crashes on bicycles, and no one disputes the benefits of
> helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
> cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
> disputes it). Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
> benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?

I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
(and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.

On May 24, 11:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.

And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.

Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
medical license.

- Frank Krygowski

>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> medical license.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
made on cyclehelmets.org

Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
data yourself.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f678f772-00aa-4ec1-b271-c83cf4ccae2c@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 11:57 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> medical license.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

In article <iso_j.6125$nW2.5242@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> writes:
>>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>>
>> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
>> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
>> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>>
>> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
>> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
>> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
>> medical license.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org
>
> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.

Wouldn't it be oh so kewl to have Ike for a customer?

As your fitting him to his bike you could suggest he
step-up progress wrt Civil Rights, and put a bee in his
bonnet to watch out for the Richard Millstone Nixon guy
who's too loose with his use of bad words. And besides,
his eyes are too close together. Maybe get invited to an
exclusive lobsterfest. Black tie, & tasteful lobster bib
that does /not/ say stuff on it like: "Barry Goldwater is
a Warmongering Idiot."

OTOH, maybe it could work. I dunno.



cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On May 25, 10:05 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <iso_j.6125$nW2.5...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> >>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> >>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> >> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> >> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> >> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> >> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> >> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> >> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> >> medical license.
>
> > There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> > severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> > made on cyclehelmets.org
>
> > Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> > thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> > that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
>
> Wouldn't it be oh so kewl to have Ike for a customer?
>
> As your fitting him to his bike you could suggest he
> step-up progress wrt Civil Rights, and put a bee in his
> bonnet to watch out for the Richard Millstone Nixon guy
> who's too loose with his use of bad words. And besides,
> his eyes are too close together. Maybe get invited to an
> exclusive lobsterfest. Black tie, & tasteful lobster bib
> that does /not/ say stuff on it like: "Barry Goldwater is
> a Warmongering Idiot."
>
> OTOH, maybe it could work. I dunno.

Ike was all right. He made some big mistakes as president. The aid
structure to and policy toward S. Viet Nam was not well thought-out.

On May 25, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> >> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> >> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> >> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> > And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> > based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> > and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> > Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> > cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> > Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> > medical license.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org
>
> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
>
> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.

Sorry, Mike, but you seem to have misread what I wrote.

In my post above, I didn't mention _physicians_ saying cycling is
dangerous. On the contrary, I mentioned a physician promoting
cycling; but I said "there would be people calling for revocation of
his medical license." Those "people" are not necessarily physicians.
They are the aggressive handwringers who know what's best for everyone
else's safety.

However, some of them _are_ physicians, whether or not they are
"physicians in general." From http://tinyurl.com/3l9odz

"Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center of Injury Research and Policy
at Children's, said bicycle accidents are one of the main causes of
traumatic brain injury in children. That's why he is working with the
Columbus City Council to introduce an ordinance that would require
children younger than 18 to wear helmets while using bikes,
skateboards, scooters and skates in the city."

Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
can't disagree with that?

- Frank Krygowski

In article
<bc0feec9-ae62-4680-810e-3631dedef5cc@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
> > >> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> > >> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> > >> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
> >
> > > And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> > > based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> > > and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
> >
> > > Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> > > cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> > > Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> > > medical license.
> >
> > There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> > severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> > made on cyclehelmets.org
> >
> > Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> > thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> > that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> > are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> > data yourself.
>
> Sorry, Mike, but you seem to have misread what I wrote.
>
> In my post above, I didn't mention _physicians_ saying cycling is
> dangerous. On the contrary, I mentioned a physician promoting
> cycling; but I said "there would be people calling for revocation of
> his medical license." Those "people" are not necessarily physicians.
> They are the aggressive handwringers who know what's best for everyone
> else's safety.
>
> However, some of them _are_ physicians, whether or not they are
> "physicians in general." From http://tinyurl.com/3l9odz
>
> "Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center of Injury Research and Policy
> at Children's, said bicycle accidents are one of the main causes of
> traumatic brain injury in children. That's why he is working with the
> Columbus City Council to introduce an ordinance that would require
> children younger than 18 to wear helmets while using bikes,
> skateboards, scooters and skates in the city."
>
> Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
> better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
> helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
> can't disagree with that?

Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.

Indeed, the general thrust of most safety legislation is, roughly, that
safety can be increased dramatically through the use of safer procedures
or equipment.

To give a specific example, seat belts indisputably increase the safety
of being in a car crash, and not by a little bit.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
>> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
>> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
>> medical license.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org

There is no scientific basis, even slim, for the claims made on
cyclehelmets.org. You were spot-on with your description of that site
being a collection of "agenda-driven babble."

> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.

Not just for cardiovascular and weight reasons either. For patients with
knee problems that invariably result from running as exercise, cycling
is often recommended as an activity that has less impact than running.
OTOH, there are often groups of ER physicians and nurses that are
involved int the helmet campaigns simply because they see the enormous
difference in the severity of head injuries between helmeted and
non-helmeted cyclists involved in a head impact crash.

> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.

You're new here, huh?

I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis by
law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets, and
almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not riding on
sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a sense of
invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as they're wearing a
helmet they can be stupid.

On May 26, 3:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bc0feec9-ae62-4680-810e-3631dedef...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
> > better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
> > helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
> > can't disagree with that?
>
> Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
> It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
> transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. If, as you say, they
believe cycling is "a hazardous activity," then you're confirming what
I said - that they believe cycling is very dangerous. No?

If someone advocates making bicycling without a helmet illegal, they
must think it's better for a person to not cycle, than to cycle
without a helmet. Isn't that exactly what such laws say?

- Frank Krygowski

On May 26, 8:53 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> There is no scientific basis, even slim, for the claims made on
> cyclehelmets.org. You were spot-on with your description of that site
> being a collection of "agenda-driven babble."

I invite anyone to visit www.cyclehelmets.org and check his claim that
there is no scientific basis for any claims made there. You may wish
to look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

or some of the papers at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1146

- Frank Krygowski

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

>> Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
>> better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
>> helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
>> can't disagree with that?
>
> Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
> It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
> transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.

The proponents of MHLs are of the mindset "let's pass more laws to make
everything safer for everyone." They don't believe that it's better for
a person not to cycle rather than cycle without a helmet, they believe
that the requirement to wear a helmet will simply mean that everyone
that doesn't already wear a helmet will start wearing one, and no one
will stop cycling.

There's been no evidence that helmet laws, even adult helmet laws, cause
any reduction in the number of cyclists. The same thing happened with
motorcycle helmet laws--there was grumbling by the few riders that
didn't want to wear helmets that they should have the choice of how safe
they wanted to be, there were a few groups that made up stories about
how helmets made riding less safe, but in the end everyone either put on
a helmet or rode without one and risked a ticket.

Other than perhaps some babble-based, non-scientific, agenda-driven,
organizations like cyclehelmets.org, no one disputes that helmets do
make cycling safer in the unlikely event of a head-impact crash, so the
MHL people do have a basis for their actions, but MHLs avoid looking at
the big picture of safety which I believe gives many riders (and
parents) a false sense of security.

MHLs are cheap to implement. Enforcement is sporadic or non-existent.
They probably negatively impact safety because they're seen as a
substitute for actions that would have more of an effect on safety such
as properly designed streets, traffic calming, and bicycle education.

I wonder what the delta is between adult helmet usage with and without
an MHL. There are no MHLs for adults in my area, yet helmet usage is
very high, at least 80%. Education works almost as well as compulsion in
terms of increasing helmet wearing rates.

On May 27, 12:22 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> There's been no evidence that helmet laws, even adult helmet laws, cause
> any reduction in the number of cyclists.

As with most of Steven M. Scharf's helmet pronouncements, this
demonstrates near-total ignorance of the facts. The evidence of
significant cycling reductions is incontrovertible. It's appeared
whenever serious before/after counts have been done, and the reason
for the reductions has been confirmed by telephone surveys in at least
one case. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf, for
example. Or try any of the links at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1096

> The same thing happened with
> motorcycle helmet laws--there was grumbling by the few riders that
> didn't want to wear helmets that they should have the choice of how safe
> they wanted to be, there were a few groups that made up stories about
> how helmets made riding less safe, but in the end everyone either put on
> a helmet or rode without one and risked a ticket.

And yet, when motorcycle helmet laws have been repealed, motorcycle
sales and registrations have consistently risen.

Mr. Scharf really should stick to his area of expertise: coffee.

- Frank Krygowski

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Ike was all right. He made some big mistakes as president. The aid
> structure to and policy toward S. Viet Nam was not well thought-out.

His presidency failed because he didn't follow his own instincts, but
let others with their own agenda advise him. Getting us into Vietnam was
his biggest error. However if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated we
wouldn't have been in Vietnam for so long.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

>
> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.

It's not that the data is bogus, it's that it's out of context. No one
disputes that helmets provide a big benefit in the event of crash
involving impact to the head, but the number of such crashes is
relatively low.

Not to defend cyclehelmets.org, it represents the worst kind of fake
neo-con science, right up there with intelligent design and the denial
of the human impact on global warming, but the emphasis by the media on
helmets and the lack of reporting on other aspects of safe cycling can
be annoying. Accidents where a helmet saved the cyclists life, or
prevented serious injury, as well as stories where the lack of a helmet
resulted in serious injury or death are popular newspaper stories. Just
Google News "bicycle helmet saves life" and look at some of the results:

-----

"http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1046031"
Cyclist uses head, helmet worked

"http://www.chronline.com/story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1211305472&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1"
Life Saved by Bike Helmet--Non-Injury Collision Between Car and Bike:
Teenager’s Skull Not Smashed When Head Goes Through Windshield,
Responders Praise Helmet He Wore

"http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/05/09/5518826.html"
“A proper bicycle helmet would certainly have prevented the head injury
sustained by the child,” said Const. John Reurink.

"http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_9367567?source=most_viewed"
Bennington Police cite bike helmet as saving local man

"http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4523636a6497.html"
Helmet saves cyclist's life

Where are the stories like "Cyclists life saved by riding on the right
side of the road," and "Cyclists life saved by not riding on the sidewalk."

-----

Wearing a helmet is a good idea, but it's become a substitute for safe
riding, especially by children and teens.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
> food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
> Snap-On.

You mean you don't lust after Harbor Freight tools?

Craftsman hand tools are pretty low quality, it's just that they'll
replace them free forever, and few people use them in a way that a
professional would use tools.

I've had tools replaced at Sears after 25+ years, tools I bought back in
college. No hassle at all. Probably wouldn't have been worth it to buy
Snap-On for home use. However when I bought an impact wrench I did go
with the Ingersoll Rand 231, the super-standard, rather than something
from Harbor Freight.

SMS wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
>>> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
>>> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
>>> medical license.
>>
>>
>> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this
>> way of severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is
>> for the claims made on cyclehelmets.org
>
>
> There is no scientific basis, even slim, for the claims made on
> cyclehelmets.org. You were spot-on with your description of that site
> being a collection of "agenda-driven babble."
>
>> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an
>> unsafe thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their
>> doctor told them that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
>
>
> Not just for cardiovascular and weight reasons either. For patients with
> knee problems that invariably result from running as exercise, cycling
> is often recommended as an activity that has less impact than running.
> OTOH, there are often groups of ER physicians and nurses that are
> involved int the helmet campaigns simply because they see the enormous
> difference in the severity of head injuries between helmeted and
> non-helmeted cyclists involved in a head impact crash.
>
>> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet
>> companies are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing
>> equally suspect data yourself.
>
>
> You're new here, huh?
>
> I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis by
> law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets, and
> almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not riding on
> sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a sense of
> invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as they're wearing a
> helmet they can be stupid.

This is for the same reason that auto mfgrs. tout safety features like
multiple airbags and crumple zones and don't mention fundamentals like
handling, braking, and acceleration. They just assume that people are
going to crash, because they drive like idiots.

Sadly, they're right.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> SMS wrote:

>> I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis
>> by law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets,
>> and almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not
>> riding on sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a
>> sense of invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as
>> they're wearing a helmet they can be stupid.
>
> This is for the same reason that auto mfgrs. tout safety features like
> multiple airbags and crumple zones and don't mention fundamentals like
> handling, braking, and acceleration. They just assume that people are
> going to crash, because they drive like idiots.
>
> Sadly, they're right.

But most drivers do obey basic traffic laws. They make some semblance of
a stop at stop signs. They usually stop at red lights, other than some
serial red light running just as it turns red. They drive on the right
(or on the left as the case may be). There is a lot of enforcement of
the rules, with heavy fines, increased insurance cost, and the
possibility of loss of license, if they rack up too many tickets.

Vehicle manufacturers do mention acceleration and braking (at least when
it's good) though handling is harder to measure objectively.

Promotion of bicycle helmets is widespread, yet other important aspects
of bicycle safety are ignored, as if the helmet is a license to ride
unsafely (though of course the non-helmeted riders are equally clueless
in other aspects of safety.

It's all those idiot drivers that are often alert enough to not mow down
that kid that comes unexpectedly off the sidewalk into their path, or
across a driveway on the sidewalk at high speed.

On May 29, 9:47 am, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>At least in my area (metro DC area) most
>drivers are incompetent and should not be on the road.

Driving on the Capital Beltway = Death Wish

Bicyclng in and around the Nation's Capital = Insane Death Wish

It helps if your are basically nuts...

On May 29, 11:29 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 29, 9:47 am, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >At least in my area (metro DC area) most
> >drivers are incompetent and should not be on the road.
>
> Driving on the Capital Beltway = Death Wish
>
> Bicyclng in and around the Nation's Capital = Insane Death Wish
>
> It helps if your are basically nuts...

So I'm all good then. If you can just help me get over my misanthropy
I'll be set.

BTW if you think the Beltway is bad, try driving the Anacostia Freeway
when traffic is heavy but still moving quickly. It's an experience
not to be missed.

nate