Weekly portion of Simon and Caitlin
Feb. 21st, 2011 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oksani1. Valentine caused a massive chocolate fall out over our house
Святой Валентин завалил нас шоколадом.
2. Katie came home wearing something completely weird.
Катя пришла домой непойми в чем.
3. Running to Simon's class
Бежим в Сенькин класс
4. Daycare buddies.
Соратники
5. Dropping off Katie
Отвожу Катю.
6. I tripped and fell, should I cry now?
Я тут споткнулась и упала. Плакать, или никто не заметил?
7. Ballerina in training
Балеринка
8. I have breakfast now, you may go
Завтрак дали, можешь идти.
9. Fit for Woodstock
Хиппушка
10. Watching Monsters Inc.
Смотрим Монстров.
11. Learning process
Осваиваем самокат
12. Let me show you how it's done
Смотри как надо!
13 Stomping rocket
Не знаю как эта игрушка по русски называется.
14 It fliiiies
Но она летает
15. Little biker
Маленький велосипедист
16. Biking with mommy
Ездим с мамой
17. Good bye
До свидания
Святой Валентин завалил нас шоколадом.
2. Katie came home wearing something completely weird.
Катя пришла домой непойми в чем.
3. Running to Simon's class
Бежим в Сенькин класс
4. Daycare buddies.
Соратники
5. Dropping off Katie
Отвожу Катю.
6. I tripped and fell, should I cry now?
Я тут споткнулась и упала. Плакать, или никто не заметил?
7. Ballerina in training
Балеринка
8. I have breakfast now, you may go
Завтрак дали, можешь идти.
9. Fit for Woodstock
Хиппушка
10. Watching Monsters Inc.
Смотрим Монстров.
11. Learning process
Осваиваем самокат
12. Let me show you how it's done
Смотри как надо!
13 Stomping rocket
Не знаю как эта игрушка по русски называется.
14 It fliiiies
Но она летает
15. Little biker
Маленький велосипедист
16. Biking with mommy
Ездим с мамой
17. Good bye
До свидания
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:39 pm (UTC)And, since the kiddos are so super cute, I have a question for you. How do you deal with random people who are dying to touch Katie in stores and restaurants? Grab her little hand or foot? Poke their face into her stroller? Our neighborhood is not safe, and I'm not okay with such escapades, but I don't know how to stop them politely. What do you do?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:42 pm (UTC)I just don't mind, that's basically it. Yesterday a little boy poked her in the eye with a sugary finger, but she thought it was funny, so all is well.
What choice do you have?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 05:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 04:13 pm (UTC)http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
THis one states that there is no evidence that the bike use has diminished - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20029/abstract, but the whole article costs money :)
This one is on your side - http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lobby.html
but I don't see ANY research to back up their claim, and they do lots of their own manipulation (like statiting that there really aren't that many injuries on bikes, and cars are more dangerous, but how is that relevant at all? Typical smoke).
So I would really like to see a study that states that a helmet hurts something. I have personally been in unlikely, albeit not bicycle, accidents where I hit my head, and was either was wearing a helmet, or got really supremely lucky and my head hit something soft. And this is MY CHILD we are talking about, so if 10 bucks can lower his risk by .0001%, then why not?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 07:41 pm (UTC)If anything is "typical smoke", it's the stuff in the above link. This is not a research study, but rather a summary of results from different studies. I can't be bothered to dismantle them all one by one, but let's focus on one just one. As the author of the summary states, "One of the best and most comprehensive of such studies has been the Australian one by McDermott et al (1993)." So, what are we told about this study? Not nearly enough to draw any conclusions, just a brief mention of a 45% injury reduction rate plus a riduculous assertion: "As noted, and as the authors acknowledge, this sampling misses many of those wearers who avoided head injury because the helmet was effective, and therefore underestimates the risk reduction effect to an unknown extent." This automatically makes one incredibly suspicious, because the authors clearly assume that helmets do reduce injury and are biased from the start. In truth, we also don't know the following:
- How many cyclists were more likely to have an injury because of a helmet due to taking increased risks (a well-documented phenomenon known as risk compensation has been showed to occur again and again, and not just in context of cycling injuries but in context of any safety equipment)
- How many cyclists had a more severe head injury as a result of wearing a helmet. If you are really honest and unbiased, you can't just *assume* before the start of your study that helmets will reduce injury to some extent, and your job is simply to determine to what extent. Tobacco once was thought to be a medicine, yet we know today of its harmful effects on health. There is some evidence that helmets actually can make some types of injuries worse (ironically, it's the more severe types of brain injuries) -- and while I will not claim that this is well-documented or by any means proven, it at least confirms that there is room for doubt and debate, and everyone who simply assumes helmets must work is not intellectually honest.
- Whether helmeted cyclists were more likely to get a post-collision medical check-up following a minor bump, thus skewing the statistics and making it look as if helmet wearers suffer, on average, less severe injuries following a collision. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis, since wearing a helmet probably correlates with overall concern for health. This, in fact, was a major problem with a study that claimed 85% reduction in head injury... when the numbers were analyzed, it turned out that according to that study wearing a helmet also reduces injury to other body parts by 74%! Clearly something has been mucked up there.
> So I would really like to see a study that states that
> a helmet hurts something
The very study quoted above actually shows an increased risk of neck injury for helmeted cyclists. Now, I don't think it proves anything given that the study is poorly designed and many factors are completely unaccounted for, but it is especially ridiculous to accept this study does demonstrate head injury reduction and write off neck injury increase as a statistical glitch.
The fact that helmet laws do decrease cycling is also documented in a variety of cases. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1108.html
The onus, at any rate, is on helmet advocates to supply evidence that helmets work, and I'd like to see one single valid study that it works. So far, I have not seen it.
> I have personally been in unlikely, albeit not bicycle,
> accidents where I hit my head, and was either was wearing
> a helmet, or got really supremely lucky and my head hit
> something soft.
Well, this is another point: how come cycling gets singled out. It's not a particularly high-risk activity, especially for adults. It is quoted to death that "the most common cause of death in cycling accidents is head injury", but guess what it is in pedestrian and motorist deaths? Ta-da HEAD INJURY! Cycling is not significantly more dangerous than walking or driving (in fact, walking is apparently the most dangerous of the three per mile travelled, while driving is most dangerous per hour), yet we don't wear helmets while walking or driving, despite potential head injury reduction.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 07:46 pm (UTC)And right now we are discussing whether or not MY CHILD needs a helmet when biking, scooting, roller blading, etc. So the arguements "for adults" or "why just biking" do not apply here.
And while driving, my children DO have head protection, as it's mandatory for the car seats to provide it.
On top of that, as I stated before, it doesn't matter what's more dangerous, what matters is whether or not the helmet makes it more dangerous for the biker. If it does, I haven't been able to find any proof of that.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 07:42 pm (UTC)> And this is MY CHILD we are talking about, so if 10
> bucks can lower his risk by .0001%, then why not?
Cost-benefit analysis. There are much better ways to spend $10 on safety, yet you would choose to spend it in one of the least productive ways. Moreover, it is not even clear that the risks are reduced due to:
1) RISK COMPENSATION. This is so well-researched and widely accepted, that I won't bother giving links, I'm sure you can Google.
2) A good chance that the child will choose to cycle less and engage in physical activity less due to the dislike of helmets and similar restrictions, and end up playing video games instead.
I am not saying this is necessarily going to be the case, but the chances of this are non-trivial and cannot be ignored if you're hoping to have a proper estimation of risks. Of course, if the main reason for strapping on a helmet is to reduce anxiety, then go ahead, put it on. Most decisions we humans make are emotional, not rational.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 07:50 pm (UTC)1) There is no risk compensation in a three year old. That's just not how kids think. In adults, yes, I'll take that point. On top of that, he rides with me, so I am fully able to prevent "risk compensation".
2) That's a contrived argument if I ever heard one. It might be true with an average adult, but certainly not with my child. He actually likes his helmet, and sometimes goes riding just so he can wear it :)
"Rational" is such a stretchy term. Cost benefit analysis is different for everyone. There are plenty of people that think that seat belts aren't worth it, after such analysis, does it mean that's a rational decision?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:21 pm (UTC)> better, then it's 10 bucks well spent, even if I am delusional.
That's exactly what I said at the end of my last post. :-) By the way, I am more inclined to agree with you that helmets may be more beneficial for children. In fact, they are designed to prevent injuries at relatively low speeds and falls from low heights, which is exactly what children are exposed to. Plus, there is no arguing that helmets do protect from superficial injuries (scratches, lacerations), and if that's enough of a reason to wear one, well, sure, go ahead. My main beef is with helmet zealots who claim that "HELMETS SAVE LIVES!!!"
> 1) There is no risk compensation in a three year old. That's just not
> how kids think. In adults, yes, I'll take that point.
I thought our discussion was primarily focussed on adults (following the "mommy needs a helmet" comment). As for risk compensation, it may be more pronounced in adults, but the effect has been noted in kids as well, though whether that extends to three-year-olds I am not sure -- I haven't seen any kind of data of that sort.
> 2) That's a contrived argument if I ever heard one. It might be true
> with an average adult, but certainly not with my child. He actually
> likes his helmet, and sometimes goes riding just so he can wear it :)
Well, great, then. Obviously, there will be a subset of kids like that, even if they are in the minority. This might change in the future, though, when peer pressure sets in. Of course, this is merely a speculation, but one that is supported by anecdotal evidence as well as the statistics documenting the sharp drop in teenage cycling following helmet laws introduction (especially if the law is actually enforced).
> There are plenty of people that think that seat belts aren't worth it,
> after such analysis, does it mean that's a rational decision?
Probably no decision is fully rational, because in the end everyone is trying to maximize one's pleasure from life (I use "pleasure" here in an extremely broad sense) -- and that's an emotional category in itself.
Speaking of seatbelts, by the way, there is some interesting evidence that due to -- again! -- risk compensation, the drivers take more risks and, as a result, there end up being more crashes and more fatalities, especially pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, since they too were exposed to the careless drivers but, unlike the belted car occupants, received no additional protection. I recently played in a fairly informal hockey tournament (we had referees, rules, etc, but the rules were greatly simplified and overall everything was very relaxed and community-oriented), and not only was full hockey equipment not mandatory -- it was *prohibited*, to ensure that fully equipped players do not play too roughly and end up injuring those who are not similarly equipped.
On a road safety board I read once someone's jocular suggestion that instead of an airbag, what should pop out in a crash is a bag with long sharp metal spikes. While obviously a joke, if it were implemented, I bet the number of driving incidents would decline dramatically, following such a measure. :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:30 pm (UTC)As for "cool" factor, it cuts both ways. As soon as the majority thinks that seat belt/helmets are necessary, both risk compensation, and the coolness factor reduction in behavior become a nonissue. Noone now thinks about whether or not there is a seat belt on, it's simply on, as it has been for the entire life of the individual.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:01 pm (UTC)> his.
I thought you just told me he loved it so much that he wants to go cycling just as an excuse to wear it? Of course, putting it on your own head doesn't hurt.
> As for "cool" factor, it cuts both ways. As soon as the majority thinks
> that seat belt/helmets are necessary, both risk compensation, and the
> coolness factor reduction in behavior become a nonissue. Noone now
> thinks about whether or not there is a seat belt on, it's simply on, as
> it has been for the entire life of the individual.
It's true that one does have to distinguish between long-term and short-term effect of such policies, however, unfortunately, it does not quite work as simply as you describe. Yes, seatbelts become the norm, but faster and riskier driving becomes the norm as well, since the perception of driving as safe and cars as equipped of great features to keep you alive and well gets rooted in. The seatbelt is on by default, the speed limit is broken by default too.
As for the 'coolness' factor, I am afraid that something like cycling is more likely to just die out before all teenagers accept that helmets are "the default" and drop it entirely. They'll just ask mom to chauffer them everywhere and jump behind the wheel of a car as early as they are legally able.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:04 pm (UTC)Oh cmon, you aren't arguing that it's HELMETS that's killing off bicycling? It's the lack of available roads/parking/showers. Helmet laws are on 100th place in that scale.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:16 pm (UTC)However, helmet laws doubtlessly work agains cycling popularity. In several places there've been sharp declines in cycling following helmet law introductions. Some places recovered better, some not at all (there may be a correlation between recovery rates and strictness of enforcement).
However, it's not just the laws themselves. The whole fear-mongering helmet propaganda that paints cycling as this dangerous activity requiring specialized equipment is _part_ of why it is not more popular than it is. The only piece of advice the fear-mongerers give you is preaching the "Always wear a helmet mantra" over and over and over. Of course, when people look at cars on the road and then at a fragile piece of styrofoam, they kind of realize that the protection offered by the helmet is really really limited. Yet, they are convinced that helmets are an absolute necessary (clearly that must be because cycling is very dangerous), so they decide they'd just rather not do it altogether.
Of course, proper education, roads, parking, showers etc. would do a lot more to both promote cycling and increase its safety. And that's another reason the helmet thing makes me so sad -- because instead of focussing on all those other things, the powers that be decide that they want to "do something" about "cycling safety", so they're just going to... introduce a helmet law, or talk to kids in school about helmets, or give out free helmets and so on and so forth ad naseum. It's just so easy, so non-controversial (no parking or road space taken away from the allmighty car!), and so in-line with the "safety"-obsessed (note the "") North American culture, that you can get away with doing this useless bit and pretending you "did something for cycling safety in your community". *groan*
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:22 pm (UTC)Trust me, I did a cost-benefit analysis on that as well.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:57 pm (UTC)