Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:03:33 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:11:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/10/2024 11:55 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

 
To argue against mandatory helmet laws is one thing, but to argue
against someone choosing to wear one is stupid and ugly.

>
Because it's blasphemy to question the helmet religion?
>
Because no one should ever examine all the relevant data?

>
No, because people should mind their own business. That someone else
wears a helmet is not my concern, nor is it yours.
>

Because you, personally, believe parents should not have the right to
make this decision regarding their own children? That is what you said.

>
I'll say it again, if you want.
>
I believe parents do not and should not have absolute total control
over their children. I believe governments have an obligation to
protect children. To what extent that protection should go is
detirmined by the voters in that jurisdiction.
>

As helmets seem to at a population level be statistically insignificant in
that no effect can be found at population levels.

>
Absolutely true. Almost all bike helmet propaganda is based on
dishonestly labeled "case-control" studies - dishonest because there's
been solid evidence that the two groups being compared typically varied
in many more ways than helmet use. The most famous example being the
1989 study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, in which helmets had been
worn by over 20% of the kids brought to hospitals for bike crashes. That
was at a time when street surveys by the same team found only 3% of kids
were wearing helmets. So helmeted kids were FAR more likely to be
brought in. We could discuss likely reasons why - if this were a more
rational group.

>
<LOL>  Since helmets don't protect against broken arms and legs and
many other injuries, the data about helmets is insignificant. 
>

When data (mostly time series data) is examined for entire populations
of cyclists, helmet benefits vanish. In fact, as bike helmets became
more common over the years, bicyclist concussions increased, not decreased.
>
But to me, the biggest fallacy is pretending that the rate of bicycling
brain injury is so extreme that helmets should be recommended, let alone
mandated. There's been propaganda like "You could fall over in your
driveway and die," which is exactly as true as "You could fall while
walking in your home and die." Except that the latter happens far, far
more often than the former. Ditto for fatal brain injuries inside cars.
Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.

But I do have to laugh at Frankie though.

I've probably told this story before but when we built the first oil
exploration well sites in the Indonesian portion of New Guinea the
drilling crew were wearing levies and a shirt when working on the rig
and then the Insurance guy visited the rig and told the Rig Manager
that there would be no more of that business and the Rig Manager gets
the two shifts together and tells them, "When you come back from break
be sure to bring your hard toe boots and your hard hat and if you
forget don't bother to come back at all.

But of course these guys were sunburned hard handed "working" men not
some white skinned soft handed "teacher"., But never a word... "you
gotta wear an hard hat then I'll get a hard hat".

And before Frankly starts jumping around shouting "but, but, but,
"but, I'm an engineer" I'll just mention that every rig has two or
more "Mud Engineers" (wearing a hard hat and hard toe boots) who are
collage graduates and  rather important to operations as if they get
it wrong it can cause the loss of the Rig and the whole camp site.

--
Cheers,

John B.