Helmets cramp my style: Part 2
08-18-09, 10:50 AM
#826
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1. When riding a recumbant, I am riding feet-first, not head-first.
2. When riding a recumbant, my head is about 3 feet off the ground, not five feet.
Do the physics of a fall. The fall is from about two feet onto your butt, not onto your head from five feet. If I do hit my head on the ground, it is a crash from three feet, and not five feet.
John
08-18-09, 10:53 AM
#827
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Nope, you're so into your dagma that you cannot see evidence when it is staring you in the face. You think you know what has happened in someone else's situation without the faintest attempt at an analysis. You don't even ask for the event sequence--just jump to the conclusion phase. Talk about an embarressment...
John
John
08-18-09, 10:58 AM
#828
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,511
Bikes: Surly Pacer/Cutter/Viking
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
Head injuries account for more than 60 percent of bicycle-related deaths, more than two-thirds of bicycle-related hospital admissions and about one-third of hospital emergency room visits for bicycling injuries.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year, rising with health care costs.
Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.
Please explain where I am wrong in feeling that your statement about cyclists with helmets having the exact same injuries is completely off-base.
08-18-09, 10:58 AM
#829
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,511
Bikes: Surly Pacer/Cutter/Viking
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Nope, you're so into your dagma that you cannot see evidence when it is staring you in the face. You think you know what has happened in someone else's situation without the faintest attempt at an analysis. You don't even ask for the event sequence--just jump to the conclusion phase. Talk about an embarressment...
John
John
08-18-09, 12:14 PM
#831
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Good source of stats (if you are entirely dedicated to convincing people cycling is quite possibly the most dangerous thing you could do - except, of course, if you wear a helmet. Then, it's perfectly fine)
Last edited by closetbiker; 08-18-09 at 06:18 PM.
08-18-09, 01:52 PM
#832
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Those would be the special copyright laws which stop you summarizing the experimental methodology, sample size and reproducibility?
Maybe my "wackiness" is actually the result of a lot more experience than some others in the field of safety, from about thirty years of study. What may be "counter-intuitive" to some is accepted knowledge by others who have studied a field of knowledge in-depth. B.F. Skinner dates back a long ways.
Just put up or shut up John. If I go read those references and find that not a single one of them contains actual research or research of an abysmally low character, or research completely orthogonal to your argument (all things which have happened with your claims before) then I'm going to .... (well what can I do with such a shameless person such as you?)
08-18-09, 06:16 PM
#833
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Nothing is trivial when it comes to researching articles which I have read over 10 years ago, some of them over 20 years ago. My sons have gone from our weekend gathering, so I will be building on this post for a while. Wait for a few hours before trying to read it, as I will be adding to it as I go. I have issues of Professional Safety Magazine going back many years, but they don't have a good index. Yes, I can get them through ASSE too, but their system is not the greatest for accessing them. Because of that, I will use a different article on Behavioral Safety, as most of them approach the information in the same manner.
I have also completed the calculations for the diagrams I want to present, but will wait just a bit longer for that project (my artistry leaves something to be desired).
The article comes from the February 1998 issue of Professional Safety Magazine (Volume 43, Number 2, February 1998, page 23). It is titled "Back to the Future: The Importance of Learning the ABCs of Behavioral Safety," by Stephen H. Reynolds.
As you can see, there is an entire body of knowledge that you are not aware of, which is in the refereneces that I have provided (including the books). I would encourage you to get those (and anyone else interested in this field) to improve how you approach the aspect of trying to change behavior by use of the consequences of that behavior. In July of 1988, I produced a program for one of the firms we insured titled "Supervising for Safety." As part of that program, I used the following slides (this is a small part of the entire program--two of those slides, printed at home off my Mac SE computer).
Concerning the "spoon-fed" comment--there are two concerns I have. One is that you and others here are intellectually lazy in really trying to find out things. The other is about copyright laws and protections. I am going just about as far as I can in not violating copyright laws here, by sourcing the information and by asking you to pick up the articles and/or books. I would highly encourage you to buy the applicable articles, and read the entire discussions. I am only providing little snippets of these, to stimulate your curiosity if that is possible. But you need to honestly try to get some of these resources for yourself. Maybe my "wackiness" is actually the result of a lot more experience than some others in the field of safety, from about thirty years of study. What may be "counter-intuitive" to some is accepted knowledge by others who have studied a field of knowledge in-depth. B.F. Skinner dates back a long ways.
John
I have also completed the calculations for the diagrams I want to present, but will wait just a bit longer for that project (my artistry leaves something to be desired).
The article comes from the February 1998 issue of Professional Safety Magazine (Volume 43, Number 2, February 1998, page 23). It is titled "Back to the Future: The Importance of Learning the ABCs of Behavioral Safety," by Stephen H. Reynolds.
WHAT ARE THE "ABCs" OF BEHAVIORAL SAFETY?
Long before applied behavioral science was considered a basis for modifying employee behavior, B.F. Skinner theorized that all behaviors are a function of "antecedents" and, perhaps to a larger extent, the "consequences" of those behaviors. Antecedents (also called "activators") serve as triggers to specific observable Behaviors. Consequences either reinforce or discourage repetition of these behaviors. Most of today's behavioral safety movements are founded on this "ABC" theory.
The first step in most behavior-based strategies is to identify certain observable, key (also called "critical") safe behaviors upstream in the process. Next, antecedents (activators) that encourage these behaviors must be identified and/or established, while those that discourage safe behavior must be removed. Concurrently, predictable positive and negative consequences must be designed and implemented to continually reinforce desired behaviors or discourage undesirable ones.
According to behaviorists, those consequences that are positive, immediate and certain (rewards) promote repetition of desired behaviors. Conversely, consequences that are negative, immediate and certain (punishment) discourage undesirable behaviors. Therefore, by designing and controlling effective workplace antecedents and censequences, management can increase desirabel key safe behaviors and reduce unsafe behaviors. In theory, effectively managing select behaviors upstream in the rpocess via a combination of well-planned antecedents and consequences will result in fewer accidents and injuries (Figure 1).
Long before applied behavioral science was considered a basis for modifying employee behavior, B.F. Skinner theorized that all behaviors are a function of "antecedents" and, perhaps to a larger extent, the "consequences" of those behaviors. Antecedents (also called "activators") serve as triggers to specific observable Behaviors. Consequences either reinforce or discourage repetition of these behaviors. Most of today's behavioral safety movements are founded on this "ABC" theory.
The first step in most behavior-based strategies is to identify certain observable, key (also called "critical") safe behaviors upstream in the process. Next, antecedents (activators) that encourage these behaviors must be identified and/or established, while those that discourage safe behavior must be removed. Concurrently, predictable positive and negative consequences must be designed and implemented to continually reinforce desired behaviors or discourage undesirable ones.
According to behaviorists, those consequences that are positive, immediate and certain (rewards) promote repetition of desired behaviors. Conversely, consequences that are negative, immediate and certain (punishment) discourage undesirable behaviors. Therefore, by designing and controlling effective workplace antecedents and censequences, management can increase desirabel key safe behaviors and reduce unsafe behaviors. In theory, effectively managing select behaviors upstream in the rpocess via a combination of well-planned antecedents and consequences will result in fewer accidents and injuries (Figure 1).
Concerning the "spoon-fed" comment--there are two concerns I have. One is that you and others here are intellectually lazy in really trying to find out things. The other is about copyright laws and protections. I am going just about as far as I can in not violating copyright laws here, by sourcing the information and by asking you to pick up the articles and/or books. I would highly encourage you to buy the applicable articles, and read the entire discussions. I am only providing little snippets of these, to stimulate your curiosity if that is possible. But you need to honestly try to get some of these resources for yourself. Maybe my "wackiness" is actually the result of a lot more experience than some others in the field of safety, from about thirty years of study. What may be "counter-intuitive" to some is accepted knowledge by others who have studied a field of knowledge in-depth. B.F. Skinner dates back a long ways.
John
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 08-18-09 at 06:22 PM.
08-18-09, 07:19 PM
#834
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Look John. This just isn't interesting because it provides nothing except recommendations about how to behave. I asked you before for a description of the experimental methodology which led you to make the surprising conclusion (which you claimed was supported by T.R. Krause's work) that people would tend to avoid or shy-away from behaviors with late-occurring, non-certain consequences. Again, I ask you for that information. I'm not interested in bizarre kindergarten-style diagrams...
...Yes, there are vast areas of which I'm unaware. That's why I ask for information on them from those that profess to be experts in those fields or at least au fait with the general outlines. You're passing yourself off as knowledgeable in the area, here's an opportunity to share some of that knowledge...
...You cheeky old monkey...
Those would be the special copyright laws which stop you summarizing the experimental methodology, sample size and reproducibility?
Oh dear god. Pretentious, uncommunicative and pompous to the end.
Just put up or shut up John. If I go read those references and find that not a single one of them contains actual research or research of an abysmally low character, or research completely orthogonal to your argument (all things which have happened with your claims before) then I'm going to .... (well what can I do with such a shameless person such as you?) (emphasis added, jcr)
...Yes, there are vast areas of which I'm unaware. That's why I ask for information on them from those that profess to be experts in those fields or at least au fait with the general outlines. You're passing yourself off as knowledgeable in the area, here's an opportunity to share some of that knowledge...
...You cheeky old monkey...
Those would be the special copyright laws which stop you summarizing the experimental methodology, sample size and reproducibility?
Oh dear god. Pretentious, uncommunicative and pompous to the end.
Just put up or shut up John. If I go read those references and find that not a single one of them contains actual research or research of an abysmally low character, or research completely orthogonal to your argument (all things which have happened with your claims before) then I'm going to .... (well what can I do with such a shameless person such as you?) (emphasis added, jcr)
I will provide that information when I'm good and ready to do so. The information is there for you to grab if you wish. I may provide it tomorrow, or two weeks from now. Or, because I have a limited amount of time, I may provide it in a year or two. It's good information, and shows what I say it shows, but you'll just have to wait. On the other hand, because of the treatment I've received here, and others have received here, I may not provide that at all--you'll just have to do your own homework.
How does that feel?
What you are doing, without even realizing it (at least it seems), is illustrating the principal that behavioral safety tries to show. If a positive, or a negative, consequence is delayed, and especially if it is uncertain, it is unlikely to serve a purpose of changing behavior. Your impatience is appreciated in making the point I was discussing.
Oh, and those "Smiles" don't help your cause as a mature writer here.
John
08-18-09, 07:33 PM
#835
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
RazrSkutr,
I will provide that information when I'm good and ready to do so. The information is there for you to grab if you wish. I may provide it tomorrow, or two weeks from now. Or, because I have a limited amount of time, I may provide it in a year or two. It's good information, and shows what I say it shows, but you'll just have to wait. ....
John
I will provide that information when I'm good and ready to do so. The information is there for you to grab if you wish. I may provide it tomorrow, or two weeks from now. Or, because I have a limited amount of time, I may provide it in a year or two. It's good information, and shows what I say it shows, but you'll just have to wait. ....
John
You're a reasonable man. You don't have to wait two weeks or two years (neither do we). You can read Dr Peter Ward's 2007 study right now. https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/presentation.pdf
08-18-09, 09:28 PM
#836
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I'm not so sure he is when it comes to the issue of bicycle helmets. It's odd, because it seems he is a reasonable man but then at times he comes up with posts that elude reason.
He's posted
but still insists cyclists should wear helmets.
He says,
and
but still says
even after he said
after studies were posted showing cyclists behaving less safe when wearing helmets compared to when they were not.
He's insisting people do something that has been shown to elevate risk in a low risk activity.
Is this what a reasonable man would insist?
He's posted
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff-HCS#1683
the relative risk is fairly low for bicyclists compared to other fairly dangerous activities, such as riding in a car
He says,
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff-HCS#1388
... that riding habits are the best preventative measure...
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff-HCS#1177
... crash prevention is better than crash mitigation,
after studies were posted showing cyclists behaving less safe when wearing helmets compared to when they were not.
He's insisting people do something that has been shown to elevate risk in a low risk activity.
Is this what a reasonable man would insist?
Last edited by closetbiker; 09-01-09 at 11:13 AM.
08-18-09, 10:39 PM
#837
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
John,
You're a reasonable man. You don't have to wait two weeks or two years (neither do we). You can read Dr Peter Ward's 2007 study right now. https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/presentation.pdf
You're a reasonable man. You don't have to wait two weeks or two years (neither do we). You can read Dr Peter Ward's 2007 study right now. https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/presentation.pdf
Originally Posted by CNS/TBI Resource Guide
Introduction
Each year, nearly 1,000 persons die from injuries caused by bicycle crashes, and 550,000 persons are treated in emergency departments for injuries related to bicycle riding. Approximately 6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization. Head injuries account for 62% of bicycle-related deaths, for 33% of bicycle-related emergency department visits, and for 67% of bicycle-related hospital admissions...
...Background
Bicycling is a popular activity in the United States. Bicycles are owned by approximately 30% of the U.S. population, and 45% of bike owners ride at least occasionally (2). Approximately 80%-90% of children own a bicycle by the time they are in second grade (3).
From 1984 through 1988, an annual average of 962 U.S. residents died from and 557,936 persons were treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related injuries (4). Approximately 6% of persons who are treated for bicycle-related injuries require hospitalization (5,6). The annual societal cost of bicycle-related injuries and deaths is approximately $8 billion (7).
Head injury is the most common cause of death and serious disability in bicycle- related crashes (1). Head injury accounts for 62% of bicycle-related deaths (4). In addition, approximately 33% of all bicycle-related emergency department visits and 67% of all bicycle-related hospital admissions (5,8) involve head injuries (1,4,5).
Head injury accounts for approximately 44% of all deaths resulting from injury in the United States (9), and approximately 7% of brain injuries are bicycle-related (2). Among survivors of nonfatal head injuries, the effects of the injury can be profound, disabling, and longlasting (9). Even after minor head injuries, persons may experience persistent neurologic symptoms (e.g., headache, dizziness, reduced memory, increased irritability, fatigue, inability to concentrate, and emotional instability). These symptoms are sometimes referred to as the "postconcussional syndrome" (10).
From 1984 through 1988, greater than 40% of all deaths from bicycle-related head injury were among persons less than 15 years of age (4). In all age groups, death rates were higher among males. Death rates from bicycle-related head injury were highest among males 10-14 years of age. During the same years, greater than 75% of persons treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related head injury were less than 15 years of age. Rates for bicycle-related head injury were also higher for males than females in all age groups; the rates were highest among males 5-15 years of age (4).
Nearly 90% of deaths from bicycle-related head injury result from collisions with motor vehicles (4). However, motor vehicle collisions cause less than 25% of the nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries that are treated in emergency departments (1,11). Excluding collisions with motor vehicles, common causes of nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries include falls, striking fixed objects, and collisions with other bicycles (1,11).
https://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeintro.shtml
Each year, nearly 1,000 persons die from injuries caused by bicycle crashes, and 550,000 persons are treated in emergency departments for injuries related to bicycle riding. Approximately 6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization. Head injuries account for 62% of bicycle-related deaths, for 33% of bicycle-related emergency department visits, and for 67% of bicycle-related hospital admissions...
...Background
Bicycling is a popular activity in the United States. Bicycles are owned by approximately 30% of the U.S. population, and 45% of bike owners ride at least occasionally (2). Approximately 80%-90% of children own a bicycle by the time they are in second grade (3).
From 1984 through 1988, an annual average of 962 U.S. residents died from and 557,936 persons were treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related injuries (4). Approximately 6% of persons who are treated for bicycle-related injuries require hospitalization (5,6). The annual societal cost of bicycle-related injuries and deaths is approximately $8 billion (7).
Head injury is the most common cause of death and serious disability in bicycle- related crashes (1). Head injury accounts for 62% of bicycle-related deaths (4). In addition, approximately 33% of all bicycle-related emergency department visits and 67% of all bicycle-related hospital admissions (5,8) involve head injuries (1,4,5).
Head injury accounts for approximately 44% of all deaths resulting from injury in the United States (9), and approximately 7% of brain injuries are bicycle-related (2). Among survivors of nonfatal head injuries, the effects of the injury can be profound, disabling, and longlasting (9). Even after minor head injuries, persons may experience persistent neurologic symptoms (e.g., headache, dizziness, reduced memory, increased irritability, fatigue, inability to concentrate, and emotional instability). These symptoms are sometimes referred to as the "postconcussional syndrome" (10).
From 1984 through 1988, greater than 40% of all deaths from bicycle-related head injury were among persons less than 15 years of age (4). In all age groups, death rates were higher among males. Death rates from bicycle-related head injury were highest among males 10-14 years of age. During the same years, greater than 75% of persons treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related head injury were less than 15 years of age. Rates for bicycle-related head injury were also higher for males than females in all age groups; the rates were highest among males 5-15 years of age (4).
Nearly 90% of deaths from bicycle-related head injury result from collisions with motor vehicles (4). However, motor vehicle collisions cause less than 25% of the nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries that are treated in emergency departments (1,11). Excluding collisions with motor vehicles, common causes of nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries include falls, striking fixed objects, and collisions with other bicycles (1,11).
https://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeintro.shtml
08-18-09, 10:43 PM
#838
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Closetbiker,
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 Six-Day War (it was much more complex than that--see the link). They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here, perhaps follow your post numbers and read the entire post to gain context.
John
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 Six-Day War (it was much more complex than that--see the link). They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here, perhaps follow your post numbers and read the entire post to gain context.
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 08-18-09 at 11:18 PM.
08-18-09, 10:49 PM
#839
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
John,
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
08-18-09, 11:06 PM
#840
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Closetbiker,
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 war. They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here.
John
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 war. They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here.
John
08-18-09, 11:19 PM
#841
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff, 05-28-07, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by Closetbiker
Well, I believe I've already answered that question, and recently posted my thoughts on children and helmets, but I guess if you don't consider balanced information and a non-judgemental acceptance of anothers pont of view as important, maybe you missed it (but I think maybe you just have a reading comprehension problem)
Ph.D.? You don't need that John. Yoo just need a lick of common sense to see "injuries" is a tremendously vague description ripe for manipulation and false impressions.
CERN physicist Georges Charpak and University of Nice physicist Henri Broch wrote in their delightful book Debunked!, "The more vague a statement is, the likelier people will recognize them selves in it."
Why should you place the risk of riding a bike in context? Larry Laudan wrote in The book of risks, "Unless someone can tell you what level of risk is associated with a given activity, then they have no business telling you it is risky to begin with."
And Michael Shermer wrote in Miracle on Probability Street, "a principle of probability called the Law of Large Numbers shows that an event with a low probability of occurrence in a small number of trials has a high probability of occurrence in a large number of trials. Events with million-to-one odds happen 295 times a day in America."
So don't feel too bad when you read of all those numbers of injured or dead cyclists, you just have to set them in context.
Since death is a pretty solid concept if we're going to try to put things into context, we'll go with that.
FARS is the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a database of transportation crashes maintained by a branch of the US Federal government and it places cycling at half the risk of being in a car per# of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs.
Stats Canada places cycling way down the list too. Per participant cycling ranks far below motor vehicle use and just simply falling.
Harvard center for risk analysis shows much the same thing, but you know all that, it's been posted many times, you just want to believe the doom sayers and ignore study and reason.
Remember, Steven Levit wrote in Freakonomics, "No one is more susceptible to an experts fear mongering than a parent. Most innovations in the field of child safety are affiliated with - shock of shocks - a new product to be marketed."
and Barry Glassner wrote in The Culture of Fear, "The success of a scare depends not only on how well it is expressed but also, as I have tried to suggest, on how well it expresses deeper cultural anxieties. The short answer to why Americans harbor so many misbegotten fears is that immense power and money await those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with symbolic substitutes."
So when we see Bell being in a conflict of interest, I call foul and I ask people to open their eyes to an obvious truth.
Cycling is not a risky thing, helmets have their limits and there are better ways to spend our time than saying cycling is risky (making cycling riskier in the process) and placing faith in an inadequate solution for what little risk there is.
Ph.D.? You don't need that John. Yoo just need a lick of common sense to see "injuries" is a tremendously vague description ripe for manipulation and false impressions.
CERN physicist Georges Charpak and University of Nice physicist Henri Broch wrote in their delightful book Debunked!, "The more vague a statement is, the likelier people will recognize them selves in it."
Why should you place the risk of riding a bike in context? Larry Laudan wrote in The book of risks, "Unless someone can tell you what level of risk is associated with a given activity, then they have no business telling you it is risky to begin with."
And Michael Shermer wrote in Miracle on Probability Street, "a principle of probability called the Law of Large Numbers shows that an event with a low probability of occurrence in a small number of trials has a high probability of occurrence in a large number of trials. Events with million-to-one odds happen 295 times a day in America."
So don't feel too bad when you read of all those numbers of injured or dead cyclists, you just have to set them in context.
Since death is a pretty solid concept if we're going to try to put things into context, we'll go with that.
FARS is the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a database of transportation crashes maintained by a branch of the US Federal government and it places cycling at half the risk of being in a car per# of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs.
Stats Canada places cycling way down the list too. Per participant cycling ranks far below motor vehicle use and just simply falling.
Harvard center for risk analysis shows much the same thing, but you know all that, it's been posted many times, you just want to believe the doom sayers and ignore study and reason.
Remember, Steven Levit wrote in Freakonomics, "No one is more susceptible to an experts fear mongering than a parent. Most innovations in the field of child safety are affiliated with - shock of shocks - a new product to be marketed."
and Barry Glassner wrote in The Culture of Fear, "The success of a scare depends not only on how well it is expressed but also, as I have tried to suggest, on how well it expresses deeper cultural anxieties. The short answer to why Americans harbor so many misbegotten fears is that immense power and money await those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with symbolic substitutes."
So when we see Bell being in a conflict of interest, I call foul and I ask people to open their eyes to an obvious truth.
Cycling is not a risky thing, helmets have their limits and there are better ways to spend our time than saying cycling is risky (making cycling riskier in the process) and placing faith in an inadequate solution for what little risk there is.
Closetbiker,
Yes, the relative risk is fairly low for bicyclists compared to other fairly dangerous activities, such as riding in a car (40,000 or so deaths a year). But, this is not a factor to those involved in the death of a bicyclist.
Years ago, at one of our Oregon Governor's Occupational Safety and Health Conferences, we had a speaker who discussed the concept of zero injuries. He was the safety officer for a US Air Force Base in Florida. At that time, the USAF had suffered several fatal accidents, and he got a memo (before e-mail) stating that they now had a policy throughout the USAF to reduce the fatality rate by one-half. For his base, that meant that he was allowed only one fatal accident for the next year. He wrote back, "Do you have anyone in mind for a volunteer?"
The point is that we don't accept 600-700 bicycle fatalities in a year as "normal," or talk about the relative risk being "low." We try to prevent those 600-700 fatalities, because they are significant to the family and loved ones involved.
John
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 08-19-09 at 12:11 AM.
08-18-09, 11:32 PM
#842
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
John,
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
Here is one very good study (about bicycle fatalities in New York City), which had many, many recommendations about infrastructure, driver and bicyclist education, etc. But still they had this statement:
Originally Posted by Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City, 1996-2005
*Wear a bicycle helmet at all times while riding--Nearly three-quarters of bicyclist fatalities with available information involved an injury to the head. Nonetheless, our data suggest nearly all (97%) riders involved in a fatal crash, and 87% of riders seriously injured were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Bicycle helmet usage is mandatory for all children under the age of 14 in New York; safety messages should remind families of this law and encourage all bicyclists to wear helmets
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 08-19-09 at 12:18 AM.
08-19-09, 06:22 AM
#843
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
>>
Closetbiker,
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 war. They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here.
John
<<
I hope they visit the quotes so they can understand where you're coming from (where ever that may be).
Closetbiker,
When I was in the USAF Global Survival School's POW camp in 1967, the "enemy" instructors used a very similar technique to "show" how the Israeli's, and USA, were responsible for all the deaths in the 1967 war. They took bits and pieces of things said on US news TV, cut them up and made them into something that they were not. We were taught to see through these propaganda techniques, and I would hope that others would also do so here.
John
<<
I hope they visit the quotes so they can understand where you're coming from (where ever that may be).
08-19-09, 06:23 AM
#844
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
John,
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
'6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization.' So we have other data that tells us only a tiny fraction of bicycle accidents are even reported, they are so trivial, and of those few, only 6% even require hospitalization for any reason. What the study does not show is of that remaining tiny percentage, what number are head injuries, and of those head injuries, what percentage would have been prevented or ameliorated by a typical bike 'helmet?'
This is all consistent with the Ward study that shows there is little difference in risk of head injury form walking as opposed to bicycling.
08-19-09, 06:32 AM
#845
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here is one very good study (about bicycle fatalities in New York City), which had many, many recommendations about infrastructure, driver and bicyclist education, etc. But still they had this statement:
Originally Posted by Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City, 1996-2005
*Wear a bicycle helmet at all times while riding--Nearly three-quarters of bicyclist fatalities with available information involved an injury to the head. Nonetheless, our data suggest nearly all (97%) riders involved in a fatal crash, and 87% of riders seriously injured were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Bicycle helmet usage is mandatory for all children under the age of 14 in New York; safety messages should remind families of this law and encourage all bicyclists to wear helmets
John
Originally Posted by Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City, 1996-2005
*Wear a bicycle helmet at all times while riding--Nearly three-quarters of bicyclist fatalities with available information involved an injury to the head. Nonetheless, our data suggest nearly all (97%) riders involved in a fatal crash, and 87% of riders seriously injured were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Bicycle helmet usage is mandatory for all children under the age of 14 in New York; safety messages should remind families of this law and encourage all bicyclists to wear helmets
John
"Correlation is not causation" is a cliche to everyone but poor John. People who take extreme risks don't wear helmets - it isn't the absence of the helmet that causes death but the risk taking. But logic this complex is utterly beyond John's mental reach.
08-19-09, 06:40 AM
#846
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Funny how you admit cycling is low risk and in the same breath say (in a way) it isn't. Is it or isn't it then? Maybe you'd like to clarify and say that cycling is an extremely dangerous pastime? Much more dangerous than driving? That cyclists do receive head injuries and do so at a greater rate than others?
Lets see, I can also guess/ask about a couple of other points related to the clippings.
I imagine that in spite of the evidence gathered, you disagree that injury rates have not lowered in spite of the increased use of helmets and that in spite of your agreement that risk compensation does happen, it doesn't happen in the specific instance of wearing bicycle helmets.
Is it surprising that an unreasonable man would object to a reasonable post? Not really. When it comes to helmets John seems to display anything but reason
Last edited by closetbiker; 08-19-09 at 09:28 AM.
08-19-09, 07:38 AM
#847
Know Your Turf
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 280
Bikes: Surly LHT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The previous poster wouldn't disagree with that. The safety issue with recumbants--and I have no data other than my own eyes--is that the recumbant is nearly invisible and thus at much higher danger of being squished by a car.
So, a helmet on a recumbant is even more likely to be superfluous: the only impact a helmet is likely to help you with on a traditional bicycle is less likely and less dangerous; the terrifying impact the helmet won't help you with is more probable.
I will say this about recumbants: they're still safer than bellysurfing a skateboard in traffic.
08-19-09, 08:20 AM
#848
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Naptown
Posts: 1,133
Bikes: NWT 24sp DD; Brompton M6R
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
These statistics have been debunked numerous times in this thread. The fact is, in jurisdictions with mandatory helmet laws and very high helmet use, there has been no detectable decline in serious injuries or death. Helmets don't make you 88% safer; they don't make you 44% safer...they don't seem to make you safer at all.
Here's a fun chart. Notice how much safer helmet made people when NZ began requiring them.
Here's a fun chart. Notice how much safer helmet made people when NZ began requiring them.
08-19-09, 09:30 AM
#849
Senior Member
Thread Starter
either that, or he just has difficulty remembering what he has said and can't put together what he has said.
08-19-09, 09:41 AM
#850
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm sure that with regard to a fall the recumbant is the preferable vehicle to fall off of.
The previous poster wouldn't disagree with that. The safety issue with recumbants--and I have no data other than my own eyes--is that the recumbant is nearly invisible and thus at much higher danger of being squished by a car.
So, a helmet on a recumbant is even more likely to be superfluous: the only impact a helmet is likely to help you with on a traditional bicycle is less likely and less dangerous; the terrifying impact the helmet won't help you with is more probable.
I will say this about recumbants: they're still safer than bellysurfing a skateboard in traffic.
The previous poster wouldn't disagree with that. The safety issue with recumbants--and I have no data other than my own eyes--is that the recumbant is nearly invisible and thus at much higher danger of being squished by a car.
So, a helmet on a recumbant is even more likely to be superfluous: the only impact a helmet is likely to help you with on a traditional bicycle is less likely and less dangerous; the terrifying impact the helmet won't help you with is more probable.
I will say this about recumbants: they're still safer than bellysurfing a skateboard in traffic.
John