Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
gwhite
psycholist
news:42D6A239...@crank.com...
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
Now you've done it. You better get yours on and strap it on tight!
--
Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
gym.gravity
gwhite wrote:
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
Fuck off!
B. Lafferty
"gym.gravity" <gym.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121363057.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> gwhite wrote:
>> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
>
> Fuck off!
>
I'll bet you fuck with a helmet and heart rate monitor. Probably a good
thing, too.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
LOL! Nice use of sarcasm :-)
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
Will
Given the gentle response above, one might assume that it is too late
for you to get much benefit from a helmet <g>.
David Ferguson
>Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
LOL
SocSecTr...@earthlink.net
gwhite wrote:
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
No, if he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he would've been more careful
and wouldn't have crashed. Crashes were almost unheard of in
professional cycling before rules were introduced requiring the use of
helmets.
Ken Prager
SocSecTr...@earthlink.net wrote:
Boy, talk about pulling something out of one's ass!
David Ferguson
Looks like the required safety equipment for rbr should be tall rubber
boots.
Very tall.
Bill C
To keep our feet of the the spunk spilled by people who let their
chain get yanked by Greg!
I'm not sure whether Greg going for the helmet troll is worse, or the
fact that he got people to respond.
Including me too I guess.
Bill C
Tim Lines
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
Yes, but did he have two guns?
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
I don't know why he pulled out, I've landed on my head more
times than I can remember, and it's never kept me from climbing
back on the bike.
Tim Lines
Take it to alt.kink.bicycles
Jay Beattie
"Ken Prager" <pra...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:11ddgj9...@corp.supernews.com...
Like, does the name Casartelli ring a bell?
On the flip side, the recent death of a helmeted racer here in
Portland, Or. shows that a helmet is not a free pass to
immortality. http://tinyurl.com/7pefv I raced that course for
years without so much as a close call. The finish is so wide and
the set-up is so long that there is rarely a mishap. This poor
guy just got in the wrong place and bit it going full blast with
a helmet on. -- Jay Beattie.
gwhite
>
> ... a helmet is not a free pass to
> immortality.
I am selling tin foil hats though. Not free, but at an affordable cost.
Mike Latondresse
news:9PCBe.1955701$Xk.1705409@pd7tw3no:
Mostly without a helmet obviously.
Callistus Valerius
> > Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
>
> I don't know why he pulled out, I've landed on my head more
> times than I can remember, and it's never kept me from climbing
> back on the bike.
>
time I did get back on the bike and rode to the hospital so they could take
care of a broken bone. The ride wasn't bad, but the service at the hospital
stunk. They wheeled me into flu ward, and I had to endure listening to all
of these slugs coughing and wheezing. What a bunch of babies. They all
thought they were gonna die. It was during a flu epidemic 5 years ago. I
can still hear them, " oh Doctor........please help ......me.....I
.....can't ....cough breathe. I felt like slapping a couple of them, so
they could regain some dignity. If any place needed a suitcase of courage
it was that place.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>stunk. They wheeled me into flu ward, and I had to endure listening to all
>of these slugs coughing and wheezing. What a bunch of babies. They all
>thought they were gonna die. It was during a flu epidemic 5 years ago. I
Flu is a serious illness that kills thousands of people every year.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Tom Keats
Hey, as long as he remembers in which direction to go.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Donald Munro
>> ... a helmet is not a free pass to immortality.
gwhite wrote:
> I am selling tin foil hats though. Not free, but at an affordable cost.
You capitalist cycling dog.
Donald Munro
> I'll bet you fuck with a helmet and heart rate monitor. Probably a good
> thing, too.
You need a helmet if you're going to fuck with your head in the sand.
Donald Munro
>>stunk. They wheeled me into flu ward, and I had to endure listening to all
>>of these slugs coughing and wheezing. What a bunch of babies. They all
>>thought they were gonna die. It was during a flu epidemic 5 years ago. I
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Flu is a serious illness that kills thousands of people every year.
As is stupidity.
B. Lafferty
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Like, does the name Casartelli ring a bell?
He actually hit more of his face than his upper head but I agree...
Helmets-don't hurt, may help. What's so diffuclt to understand?
catzz66
What a reach. If he could fly, he never would have fallen in the first
place, I suppose.
(PeteCresswell)
>They wheeled me into flu ward, and I had to endure listening to all
>of these slugs coughing and wheezing.
Did you come down with the flu later?
--
PeteCresswell
David Damerell
>Jay Beattie wrote:
>>Like, does the name Casartelli ring a bell?
>He actually hit more of his face than his upper head but I agree...
>Helmets-don't hurt, may help. What's so diffuclt to understand?
Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
torsional impacts.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Chedday, Presuary.
gwhite
And not much you can do about it either. If you catch it, you got it.
97% of voters voted Demopublican. It is a fucking epidemic.
gym.gravity
I was just trying to fast forward the thread to it's inevitable
conclusion.
gym.gravity
I just read an article about a graduate student at MIT that proposed an
"experiment" to explore the possibility of time travel. He sent out
invitations for a "time travel convention" at 10pm on a particular
night, built a platform, rigged up some lights, hired a DJ and had a
party on the campus quad. At 10pm they hoped something would happen:
Werehatrack
>Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
Too bad it was on his head instead of his knee, since at least one of
the reports seems to say that the knee is what caused him to bail out.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Bill Sornson
Well, a /snorkle/, anyway!
:-D
(PeteCresswell)
>Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
>torsional impacts.
I'm more or less of a helmet zealot since undergoing a little attitude
adjustment some years back.
But in support of your observation, I'm pretty sure I messed up my neck a couple
years back taking a header in the water at 20+ mph wearing a helmet
(windsurfing).
There was a definate sensation of the helmet catching water and twisting my
neck.
I'd extrapolate from that to believe that there's a risk factor in bike helmets
around the helmet catching on something (i.e. MTB riding...).
I still wear the things - but it's not a black-white issue with me.
--
PeteCresswell
hell0.com (Alex B.)
death, and still no conclusion has been reached. You guys can go on
all you want citing statistically insignificant personal events, but
you are neither convincing anyone, nor proving anything. An issue like
this needs scientific study, not the opinion of some random guy off
rec.bicycles.misc.
As for me, I'm taking no side, as both are as unconvincing as the other.
Mark Janeba
Hitler! Nazis!
There. Thread over. Move along folks, nothing to see here, go back to
your homes.
We now return you to your normally scheduled RBR, RBT, RBM programming.
Mark
wvantwiller
news:Hyb*el...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> Quoting Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com>:
>>Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>Like, does the name Casartelli ring a bell?
>>He actually hit more of his face than his upper head but I agree...
>>Helmets-don't hurt, may help. What's so diffuclt to understand?
>
> Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
> torsional impacts.
Why you think something that dissapates and redistributes the point
stresses that will inevitably also be present in the non-torsional part of
the impact isn't a good thing?
Compare and contrast the maybe 1" difference, allowing for the obviously
different coefficient of friction of skin vs plastic along with the slip in
the helmet suspension, with the abrasions and non-rotational trauma
inflicted.
I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
minor bicycle falls; I know of nobody who has died from a twisted neck.
I also wish I had had a helmet on when I smashed my glass lens into my face
on a fall and took 8 stitches to put the eyebrow and other skin back in
place. It's nice to know you can duck and cover on a fall instead of
trying to keep your cranium off the ground.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>> Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
>> torsional impacts.
>Why you think something that dissapates and redistributes the point
>stresses that will inevitably also be present in the non-torsional part of
>the impact isn't a good thing?
But there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use, so obviously what goes on after the crash is
only part of the story.
>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
>minor bicycle falls; I know of nobody who has died from a twisted neck.
You think? I wonder why, then, there is no robust evidence that
helmets actually save lives?
Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
But you misunderstand. The torsional force is important not because
of its effect on the neck, but because of the differential movement it
causes between the hemispheres of the brain. These torsional forces
are reckoned to be a (some say the) major source of permanent
disabling brain injury.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
John Forrest Tomlinson
<wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
>minor bicycle falls;
How do you know that?
Rich
> But you misunderstand. The torsional force is important not because
> of its effect on the neck, but because of the differential movement it
> causes between the hemispheres of the brain. These torsional forces
> are reckoned to be a (some say the) major source of permanent
> disabling brain injury.
Total BS.
wvantwiller
news:j4jhd15o09c5ld6et...@4ax.com:
Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
helmets, also.
In neither case did the victim go to the hospital, but decided just to
take a nap after the fall.
And, as usual, I suppose your experience in your person medical practice,
including all that trauma room experience during your internship and
residence, give you better insights?
Also, I suppose you were there and can vouch that my other example that
I'd be a few stitch marks to the better if I had been wearing my helmet
is ALSO false?
Or do you only consider the evidence you want to?
Must be a conspiracy. Go on wearing your aluminum skullcap.
Carl Sundquist
>The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> made a
> statement to the following effect:
>
> >The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
> >but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
> >same riding style as if you don't have one.
>
> Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
> Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
> myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.
>
Are you riding faster now with a helmet on than 20 years ago before
decent helmets existed and it was popular to wear one, and do you have
a study showing that faster speeds are more likely to contribute to
brain injury or death over medium speeds?
Doug Huffman
ignorance masquerades as common sense.
<frkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121524744....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> wvantwiller wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in
>> news:j4jhd15o09c5ld6et...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
>> > <wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
>> >>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma
>> >>of minor bicycle falls;
>> >
>> > How do you know that?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
>> trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
>> helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
>> helmets, also.
>
> To put that in perspective: We had one poster here who told of his
> doctor's evaluation. He was in a bike crash, went to the emergency
> room and was being treated by the ER doctor. He was not wearing a
> helmet when he crashed.
>
> The doctor asked him if he had been wearing a helmet. Not wanting to
> hear a lecture, he lied and said "Yes."
>
> The doctor told him "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."
>
> Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that poster. If he's still
> hanging around, perhaps he'll chime in.
>
>
> Oh, and there's little reason to think a newer generation helmet is
> more protective than an older one. If anything, the older ones
> probably had more impact protection. Helmet manufacturers are
> constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> tests.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
The Wogster
> I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:56:21 -0400, the person
> known to the court as The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> made a
> statement (<ue9Ce.19439$6e3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
>>helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
>>they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them
>
>>from harm.
>
> Seems fair to me :-)
>
>
>>The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
>>life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
>>useless in all cases, and fight against them.
>
>
> Really? Since I don't actually know of anybody in any anti-helmet
> lobby, I couldn't say, but I'd be intrigued to know what you would
> consider a realistic estimate of the life-saving capabilities of
> helmets. I tend to go by the findings of the largest study of its
> kind, by Rodgers in 1988, which found no measurable effect on injuries
> and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality, which I'm
> quite happy to write off as an artifact.
>
> So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
> zero plus or minus blind luck.
>
Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
risks and chances.
There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.
1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.
2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
to good.
3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
helmet effect none.
4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
effect none.
Out of the 4, a helmet is only involved in one, and it could more often
then not, result in a broken neck as forces are transmitted by the
helmet to the skull, and then to the neck. Gee morgue or paraplegic
wheelchair (like Christopher Reeves), hmmmmm, given those two choices,
the morgue actually sounds better.
>>The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
>>but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
>>same riding style as if you don't have one.
>
>
> Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
> Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
> myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.
But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
why would you take more chances?
W
Just zis Guy, you know?
to the court as "Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> made a statement
(<1121528081.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>> >The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
>> >but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
>> >same riding style as if you don't have one.
>> Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
>> Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
>> myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.
>Are you riding faster now with a helmet on than 20 years ago before
>decent helmets existed and it was popular to wear one,
I ride faster now with one than I do now without one. Specifically, I
corner faster when going down hills.
This applies only to my drop-bar bike. On the recumbent I go faster
than on the wedgie, and haven't noticed a hat / no hat difference.
20 years ago? Can't recall how fast I was back then, but it's
immaterial since i was an early adopter and enthusiastic advocate of
foam hats, so rarely if ever rode without one.
>and do you have
>a study showing that faster speeds are more likely to contribute to
>brain injury or death over medium speeds?
Good point. No. The only differentiating factor which is well
documented is motor vehicle involvement.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Just zis Guy, you know?
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>> So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
>> zero plus or minus blind luck.
>Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
>Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
>injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
>risks and chances.
Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk,
varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to
separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems
to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is)
balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot
anyway :-)
>There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.
Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are
100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation
100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had
have been the same.
This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed.
>>>The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
>>>but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
>>>same riding style as if you don't have one.
>> Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
>> Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
>> myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.
>But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
>why would you take more chances?
Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational
being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with
that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical
brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-)
The Wogster
> known to the court as The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> made a
> statement (<%caCe.15760$qg1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>>So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
>>>zero plus or minus blind luck.
>
>
>>Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
>>Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
>>injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
>>risks and chances.
>
>
> Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk,
> varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to
> separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems
> to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is)
> balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot
> anyway :-)
>
Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
reasons people take extra risks......
>
>>There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.
>
>
> Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are
> 100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation
> 100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had
> have been the same.
They may all be different, but they all have similarities as well, which
is why I broke it down, the way I did. MV accidents are the same,
except there are fewer possibilities but more different consequences.
You either hit something, or lose traction. I did want to show that in
some cases the M.F.H. might actually help. Also in those particular
cases, it can also make it worse, i.e. skull fracture versus neck
fracture....
>
> This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed.
>
>
>>>>The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
>>>>but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
>>>>same riding style as if you don't have one.
>
>
>>>Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
>>>Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
>>>myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.
>
>
>>But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
>>why would you take more chances?
>
>
> Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational
> being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with
> that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical
> brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-)
>
I think it's more likely that the M.F.H. lobby has psychologically made
you wonder if maybe the M.F.H. lobby is somehow correct, and that the
M.F.H. will protect you......
W
frkr...@yahoo.com
The Wogster wrote:
>
>
> Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
> don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
> reasons people take extra risks......
Helmet lobbyists do have a problem there. They typically want to
convince everyone that:
1) Bicycling without a helmet is really dangerous - so dangerous that
you should NEVER bike without a helmet!!!
2) Helmets are VERY, VERY protective. Even though their certification
standards are so low, they still prevent almost 100% of head injuries -
specifically, 85%. It's such a simple way to remove almost all of that
terrible danger!!!
3) There is nothing you can do that's more important for bike safety
than wearing a helmet!!!
The problem is, they've touted the incredible protection so long that
now, many riders feel incredibly protected, and behave accordingly.
What can they do? Start saying "Um, wait, we didn't mean they protect
you THAT well." If they start getting specific and giving the public
real certification numbers and real population results of helmet use,
people will see helmets are about as effective as lucky rabbits feet.
The current trend seems to be to (finally) add some other safety advice
onto the helmet propaganda, while still claiming helmets are the most
important step... more important than, say, lights at night, riding on
the proper side of the road, etc.
I note, though, that in the US, the push for MHLs seems to have slowed
somewhat. There are still individual communities being deluded into
enacting laws, but the enactment of state laws has slowed to a trickle.
Perhaps this is because obesity and lack of exercise are getting much
more attention, and those problems argue against discouraging cylcing.
Well, we can hope - or pretend - that's the case.
I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.
- Frank Krygowski
(PeteCresswell)
>There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.
>
>1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
>nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.
>
>2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
>while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
>to good.
>
>3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
>helmet effect none.
>
>4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
>effect none.
5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.
Been there, done that. The several-inch-high pyramid shaped outcropping that
was a few inches from where the side of my melon slapped the ground completed my
little attitude adjustment.
--
PeteCresswell
The Wogster
> I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
> bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
> enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
> helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.
>
In the last 40,000 kilometres of riding, I have had three crashes, one
resulted in a little road rash, the other two had no injuries. Most of
those kilometres are without a Magical Foam Hat, including the times of
the three crashes.
If bike riders want to lobby for anything, it should be fair use of
publicly supported roadways. Wider lanes without side to side speed
bumps, fewer nonsense all way stop signs, bike indicators and lanes
where they make sense, not just where city planners can make politicians
look good, by adding them where they are not truly needed.
A bike indicator would be where bikes need to deviate from the norm, for
example an overhead sign that indicates a highway entrance ramp might
also have a bike with an arrow over the centre or left lane. This does
two things, one it shows bikes where to go, but also indicates to cagers
that bikes may be in the centre or left lane and may be crossing the
right lane to get there.
Signs where bike roads intersect with other roads, I see nothing wrong
with a sign that says hidden intersection with a bike on it, to indicate
that it's where bike roads cross other roads.
W
Just zis Guy, you know?
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.z.invalid> made a
statement (<iqajd1l5rv0khfn31...@4ax.com> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
>whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
>sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.
I tend not to wear a magic hat, so make damn sure that doesn't happen
to me. I've lost the bike due to slippery conditions I think twice in
the last five years, once I'd slowed down in response to the slippery
road (ice) so the bike went down but I stayed standing, the other time
I took a roundabout too fast on a wet day and the bike went sideways;
I landed flat on my arse. Took out my best pair of bibtights, too. I
was not happy!
Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
a recumbent bike, where it is small.
gwhite
"hell0.com (Alex B.)" wrote:
> You guys can go on all you want citing statistically
> insignificant personal events, but you are neither
> convincing anyone, nor proving anything...
If you want to see statistics abused, visit the social sciences.
Misdirected questions yield true but meaningless statistics.
"Gazing at sheaves of statistics without 'prejudgment' is futile." --
Murray Rothbard
"Experience . . . brings out the impossibility of learning anything from
facts till they are examined and interpreted by reason; and teaches that
the most reckless and treacherous of all theorists is he who professes
to let facts and figures speak for themselves." -- Alfred Marshall
Bob the Cow
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:tvfhd1trprcn1j97r...@4ax.com...
>
> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.
frkr...@yahoo.com
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
> riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
> a recumbent bike, where it is small.
I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.
(Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune!
;-)
- Frank Krygowski
Just zis Guy, you know?
known to the court as "Bob the Cow" <u...@ftc.gov> made a statement
(<e5qdnXTFbMP...@centurytel.net> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:
>> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
>> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
>No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.
Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.
Bob the Cow
<frkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121571527.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Are you pretending that it's hard to crash a recumbent trike? Ever changed
direction in one unexpectedly due to "brake steering" at speed? They aren't
as stable as they look, and it's easy to become complacent. A LWB recumbent
bicycle also has some weight-distribution issues as to front and back wheel
which also predispose to occasional lack of control. Granted, it's not as
far to fall as from a diamond-frame, but some of these things do get up to a
respectable speed.
If a person chooses not to wear a helmet, it's none of my business.
Apparently you make it your business to question the judgment of anyone who
DOES choose to wear a helmet by attacking their choice as illogical or
susceptible to fashion. Strange bias, that.
Bob the Cow
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:8r2kd1tn3b4diunde...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
>>> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
>
>>No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.
>
> Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
> wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.
Well, you must be athletic and know how to fall. It's good you're OK. You
can take a joke too -- good on ya.
Just zis Guy, you know?
the following effect:
>>> Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
>>> riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
>>> a recumbent bike, where it is small.
>> I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
>> helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
>> that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.
>Are you pretending that it's hard to crash a recumbent trike?
No, just that it's a heck of a lot harder to achieve that 1.5m drop
with the body disconnected, as per the standards :-)
>Ever changed direction in one unexpectedly due to "brake steering" at speed?
Yep. And I've done handbrake turns on one as well :-)
>A LWB recumbent
>bicycle also has some weight-distribution issues as to front and back wheel
>which also predispose to occasional lack of control. Granted, it's not as
>far to fall as from a diamond-frame, but some of these things do get up to a
>respectable speed.
All recumbent bikes, in my experience, go really quickly when they go.
But they tend to dump you on your arse, not your head. Actually you
can sometimes put your feet down and just drop the bike, remaining
standing - I'd forgotten, that happened to me once, approaching a
traffic light, the road turned out to be greasy due to an oil slick,
the bike went down and I stood up and skated to a halt :-)
>If a person chooses not to wear a helmet, it's none of my business.
>Apparently you make it your business to question the judgment of anyone who
>DOES choose to wear a helmet by attacking their choice as illogical or
>susceptible to fashion. Strange bias, that.
Please be assured that the limit of my caring whether anyone wears a
helmet or not is as follows:
* ill-informed advocacy (look for phrases like "organ donor" or the
figure 85%)
* in countries where governments are committed to legislation when
wearing rates rise to the point that enforcement would not be
problematic, helmet wearing may impact on the freedom of choice of
others.
I have read much of the evidence, so has Frank. I'm happy to discuss
it in detail. I used to e an enthusiastic helmet advocate, I was
challenged to read the evidence, and I recognise I was duped.
Just zis Guy, you know?
the following effect:
>>>> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
>>>> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
>>>No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.
>> Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
>> wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.
>Well, you must be athletic and know how to fall. It's good you're OK. You
>can take a joke too -- good on ya.
Heh! I'm British, we are supposed to be able to take a joke :-)
frkr...@yahoo.com
Bob the Cow wrote:
> <frkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121571527.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
> > helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
> > that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.
> >
> Are you pretending that it's hard to crash a recumbent trike? Ever changed
> direction in one unexpectedly due to "brake steering" at speed? They aren't
> as stable as they look, and it's easy to become complacent. A LWB recumbent
> bicycle also has some weight-distribution issues as to front and back wheel
> which also predispose to occasional lack of control. Granted, it's not as
> far to fall as from a diamond-frame, but some of these things do get up to a
> respectable speed.
Oh, I know they get very respectable speed! But ISTM that worrying
about hitting your head in a recumbent crash is strange indeed.
Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent.
On a LWB recumbent, it's essentially impossible to go over the front.
Even on a SWB, going over the front is slower than falling forward
while walking. Sliding sideways typically puts you onto your hip, with
an arm out for protection, and your head is starting out at a much
lower height. How _does_ someone hit their head?
Let me revise that question. Why not give us five or six examples of
recumbent riders falling and hitting their heads badly, and tell us how
it happened? Maybe we can learn something. If the danger is
significant, examples should be easy to find.
> Apparently you make it your business to question the judgment of anyone who
> DOES choose to wear a helmet by attacking their choice as illogical or
> susceptible to fashion. Strange bias, that.
My bias is this: I think ordinary cycling is safe enough that unusual
protective gear isn't necessary. From 1890 until 1990, until Bell
started pushing a commercial product, that was the almost universal
opinion. In most of the world, it still is.
>From what I see, most pro-helmet decisions are not based on logic or
data. I say this as a person that used to be pro-helmet, until I was
convinced to examine the data and the "logic."
Every once in a while a new example comes up, and I comment on it.
Care for another? How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
helmets? How is that logical?
IMO, this _is_ a fashion issue, in that most people who are wearing
helmets are doing so because they see other people wearing helmets.
It's given exactly as much analysis as wearing aerodynamic sunglasses.
"Oooh, that's part of the proper look, too. And they might protect
your eyes!!!"
The difference is, Bolle' hasn't been smart enough to fund a "mandatory
sunglasses" movement by Safe Kids and The Harborview Institute. But if
they do, we'll see "scientific" papers claiming wearing sunglasses
reduce blindness and other eye injuries by "up to 85%." And we'll have
handwringing mommies in front of legislators saying "But if only _one_
child's eyesight can be saved..."
- Frank Krygowski
wvantwiller
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:08:38 -0400, wvantwiller
> <wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And, as usual, I suppose your experience in your person medical
>>practice, including all that trauma room experience during your
>>internship and residence, give you better insights?
>
> I'm not the one making claims so I have no need to back anything up.
>
> JT
>
> PS -- unless the medical people you're talking about are comparing
> people who fell and were uninjured, I don't see how they could come to
> conclusions about helmets. Think about it.
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
>
Bill Sornson
> Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
> recumbent.
Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
those two sentences.
Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
rare than that?
I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).
Bill S.
wvantwiller
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> wvantwiller wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in
>> news:j4jhd15o09c5ld6et...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
>> > <wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be
alive
>> >>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the
trauma
>> >>of minor bicycle falls;
>> >
>> > How do you know that?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
>> trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
>> helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
>> helmets, also.
>
> To put that in perspective: We had one poster here who told of his
> doctor's evaluation. He was in a bike crash, went to the emergency
> room and was being treated by the ER doctor. He was not wearing a
> helmet when he crashed.
>
> The doctor asked him if he had been wearing a helmet. Not wanting to
> hear a lecture, he lied and said "Yes."
>
> The doctor told him "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."
>
> Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that poster. If he's still
> hanging around, perhaps he'll chime in.
>
>
> Oh, and there's little reason to think a newer generation helmet is
> more protective than an older one. If anything, the older ones
> probably had more impact protection. Helmet manufacturers are
> constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> tests.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
And your point is?
The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of injury
with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape without it,
probably more than just serious.
So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
unimportant?
Bill Sornson
> The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of
> injury with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape
> without it, probably more than just serious.
>
> So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
> unimportant?
Because that's what anti-helmet zealots /want/ to believe.
HTH,
Bill "letting a little line out" S.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>
>The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of injury
>with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape without it,
>probably more than just serious.
>
>So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
>unimportant?
The doctors are only seeing people who are injured. It's an odd
sampling of people, and not one to draw any general conclusions from.
Rich
>
> How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
> plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
> their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
> helmets? How is that logical?
It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
with a helmet.
Rich
Werehatrack
>.. Helmet manufacturers are
>constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
>still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
>tests.
Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
but...
I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.
To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational
examination, not hyperbole.
I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Michael Press
Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >.. Helmet manufacturers are
> >constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> >still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> >tests.
>
> Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
> but...
>
> I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
> less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
> is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.
>
> To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational
> examination, not hyperbole.
>
> I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
> I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
> would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
> risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
> bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
> difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
> It's quite literally not my problem.
Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
rides? How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
requirement? Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear
helmets? I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.
These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign
a waiver.
Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and
that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a
minority.
tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
purposes of government.
liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
compulsion or constraint in willing.
Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.
--
Michael Press
Doug Huffman
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
"Werehatrack" <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:8smld1hr0nf3tjtv8...@4ax.com...
Doug Huffman
common = the 'people, hence "democraps"
"Michael Press" <ja...@abc.net> wrote in message
news:jack-6A1014.1...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
John Forrest Tomlinson
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
>I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
>I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
>would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
>risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
>bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
>difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
>It's quite literally not my problem.
What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
Tom Kunich
news:1121622952.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent.
Probably not. In my experience those who choose to ride rebumbents are
generally really old and feeble and too stupid to just hang onto the bike if
it tips over thereby protecting your head.
Tom Kunich
news:11dlle0...@corp.supernews.com...
So instead of teaching them to ride correctly you feel it's more important
to teach them they're likely to get hurt and they should wear body
armor..........
Bet that makes them squeel with delight and frenzy to ride.
Werehatrack
>Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
>rides?
Liability.
>How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
>requirement?
By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with.
>Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear
>helmets?
Same answer.
>I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.
What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it
succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability
to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the
cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data
is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people
who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and
regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that
you take it up with them.
>These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign
>a waiver.
A waiver will not prevent the filing of a wrongful injury or wrongful
death lawsuit, nor even reliably prevent it from proceeding and
prevailing in the majority of states, and the insurance companies that
underwrite the protection for the entities holding these events know
this.
>Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and
>that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a
>minority.
In this area, helmet wearing is a practice that is far from being
adopted by the majority. Your point is poorly-founded.
>tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
>not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
>purposes of government.
Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable
purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You
may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of
tyranny obtains.
>liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
>compulsion or constraint in willing.
Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your
freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only
encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those
activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you
wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you
will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many
parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after
dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held
jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations.
>Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.
Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your*
arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a
liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events,
you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are
legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have
difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's
an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to
assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance.
You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not,
that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you
can't accept that, it's *your* problem.
ila...@yahoo.com
John Forrest Tomlinson a écrit :
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
> <wvant...@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
> >today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
> >minor bicycle falls;
>
> How do you know that?
Read what he said: Everyone knows that helmets can resuscitate the
dead.
-ilan
frkr...@yahoo.com
Bill Sornson wrote:
> frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> > riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
> > recumbent.
>
> Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
> those two sentences.
>
> Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
> rare than that?
Let's give an example.
Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half
million miles of riding.
Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury
per two million miles of recumbent riding.
>
> I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
> likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).
Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of
1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States -
Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the
Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a
"serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious"
was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a
bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was
called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches.
Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present
in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms.
To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes
and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the
"moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6%
were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half
million miles, on average.
IOW, vanishingly rare.
(You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit
half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to,
for you.)
Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious
head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me,
people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_
the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_
vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the
1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free
world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s...
- Frank Krygowski
Werehatrack
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
><rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
>>I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
>>would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
>>risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
>>bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
>>difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
>>It's quite literally not my problem.
>
>What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
>Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is
*yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all
consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact
that they could.
frkr...@yahoo.com
Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
helmets!
There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk.
http://www.thudguard.com/
Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day
one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed!
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@yahoo.com
Werehatrack wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >.. Helmet manufacturers are
> >constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> >still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> >tests.
>
> Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
> but...
First, the term "anti-helmet zealot" makes little sense. People who
argue as helmet skeptics are actually arguing for no change in the
norm. IOW, it's the people who promote helmets that want to change
others' habits - by rule or by law, if necessary. A person who says
"Wait, we can leave it as it is" can hardly be called a zealot!
> I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
> less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
> is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.
I'm not positive the helmet is mechanically responsible for providing
_less_ protection in many crashes. I'm quite confident that helmets
prevent many inconsequential injuries, just as cycling gloves probably
do. But there is the possibility of suffering a grazing blow to a
helmet that would be a complete miss without one - and such a grazing
blow may cause rotational acceleration of the head and brain tissue.
I think what's much more likely is this: People hear "85% reduction in
head injuries." They put on a helmet and feel nearly 100% protected
(since nobody seems aware that head injuries are actually a tiny
portion of cycling injuries, as uncommon as they are). They go out and
ride in a location, or manner, that they otherwise wouldn't. And their
increase in risk outstrips what's actually the very, very modest
protective capacity of the foam hat.
Keep in mind, _something_ must be going on. Again, the large
population data shows an increase in cycling head injuries as helmet
use goes up. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html for one mention
of that fact. Data from Australia, under universal mandatory helmet
laws, shows the same trend.
> I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
> I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
> would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
> risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
> bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
> difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
> It's quite literally not my problem.
And you're welcome to wear one. In fact, I invite you to extend your
logic beyond cycling! After all, when _do_ you "know what's going to
happen"? Surely you realize that cycling is not even on the map for
causing serious head injuries, right? Why not wear a helmet for all
activities that cause head injuries?
The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet
promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk. And of
course, they've never given you correct numbers in proper context to
prove that. Nor have you looked for them. You've believed the hype,
so you treat cycling as if it's a special danger.
If you didn't think cycling caused a special danger, you wouldn't think
a special hat was necessary.
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@yahoo.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
> Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
>
Good question. I know of one instance where a guy's helmet was stolen
in the middle of a bike tour.
He rode on. Are there people here who would actually stop riding?
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@yahoo.com
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
> >rides?
> >How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
> >requirement?
>
> By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with.
:-) By telling the unhelmeted cyclist "You are not allowed to ride on
this public road, because we're riding on it, and we want you to wear a
helmet"??
Our club once supported a charity ride by working booths, helping with
lunch, etc. My best frined and I were driving sag. Helmets were
mandatory.
Sure enough, we came upon a guy out at about the 30 mile mark, riding
alone, ride number visible, helmet strapped to his rear rack. We
pulled up alongside and said "Um, you're supposed to have your helmet
on, you know."
He said something like "Yeah, I know."
We looked at each other and shrugged. What could we do? Tell him to
get off the public road? Tell him not to turn in the money he'd
collected for the charity? Tell his mommy? What I actually did was to
tell my friend "Well, it's a dumb rule anyway." And we drove on.
Oh, and BTW, that incident also proves that there must be _some_
detriment to wearing a helmet. If that guy experienced no detriment,
he wouldn't have bothered to take it off and strap it on his rear rack.
> >I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.
>
> What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it
> succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability
> to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the
> cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data
> is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people
> who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and
> regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that
> you take it up with them.
Here is the release form requested by the underwriters of the League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance.
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf
You'll note it does not mention helmets at all, let alone require them.
Apparently, those professionals who made the decision on liability
costs disagreed with _your_ analysis - even though they didn't have to
bear the cost of the helmets!
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@yahoo.com
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
> >Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
>
> Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
> based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
> irrelevant anyway.
I think it's relevant, even though you obviously don't want to answer.
It sounds to me like in at least some circumstances, you'd call for a
ride home. Am I wrong?
- Frank Krygowski
41
frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
> > older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
> > with a helmet.
>
> Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
> they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
> helmets!
>
> There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
> protect from the terrible dangers of learning to wal k.
> http://www.thudguard.com/
This is a link worth following. If you go through the entire site, you
will find that one of the claimed benefits is "Promotes early helmet
wearing habits". It was invented by a British mother whose toddler fell
and bumped her head. The product was a finalist for some "Female
Invention of the Year" award.
Predictions:
(1) Several infants will die from strangulation after snagging the chin
strap, despite the warning label.
(2) Several infants will die from heat exhaustion after wearing the
insulated covering in the summer, despite the warning label.
(3) Severla infants will suffer serious brain injury and mental
retardation from banging their helmeted heads against the wall, as an
experiment.
(4) Not one significant head injury will be prevented.
(5) It will though result in a (n all too temporary) decrease in
national valium consumption.
(6) The device will eventually be withdrawn and banned from the market,
perhaps only after many deaths. Will the helmet lobbies have enough
force to see that this happens quietly; or will we be able to hear the
facts of the disaster shouted out from the rooftops??
Bob Schwartz
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
Good work. It just doesn't feel like the Tour
without an out of control a helmet thread.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Michael Press
Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
> >not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
> >purposes of government.
>
> Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable
> purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You
> may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of
> tyranny obtains.
The case for helmets is not proven. Demanding that I buy and wear
one is tyranny according to the definition.
> >liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
> >compulsion or constraint in willing.
>
> Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your
> freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only
> encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those
> activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you
> wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you
> will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many
> parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after
> dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held
> jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations.
>
> >Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.
>
> Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your*
> arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a
> liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events,
> you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are
> legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have
> difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's
> an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to
> assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance.
The economic effect? How much?
> You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not,
> that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you
> can't accept that, it's *your* problem.
No my problem is a majority so insecure that they impose their
beliefs. I do not demand that a club change its charter so that
they may have the honor of my membership. Obviously they made
their choice and do not want me. I ask serious questions. The
benefit of helmets is not proven; the majority acts as if it is,
and apply pressure to those who demur.
One who does not wear a bicycle helmet does not infringe upon the
liberty of others. This is your problem because erosion of liberty
is everyone's problem.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<1121655233....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. People do know the risks. Cigarette smokers know, and
have always known. "Coffin nails" "Cancer sticks" "Anybody can
quit. It takes a real man to risk cancer." People who overeat,
drink heavily, take drugs all know the dangers. Nobody thinks or
has ever thought that bicycle riding is high risk behavior.
--
Michael Press
SMS
> Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
> based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
> irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is
> *yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all
> consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact
> that they could.
Well-stated. Isn't it amusing to read anecdotes that are invariably
based on the premise of 'this is what I do, I've been doing it for a
long time, nothing has happened to me, so that proves that what I've
been doing is what everyone else should do too.' Never do these people
admit, or understand, what you stated, 'Not all consequences obtain in
every instance.'
Werehatrack
>Here is the release form requested by the underwriters of the League of
>American Bicyclists' event insurance.
>http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf
>
>You'll note it does not mention helmets at all, let alone require them.
> Apparently, those professionals who made the decision on liability
>costs disagreed with _your_ analysis - even though they didn't have to
>bear the cost of the helmets!
The only local event with which I have any contacts was apparently
insured by a different outfit; they specifically made the requirement
for helmets (CPSC, as I recall) a part of the contract. If the
underwriter isn't requiring them, then I see no reason for the event
organizer to do so either, but *it's their event*, and they get to
call the shots. No one has a *right* to participate in a
privately-organized event *in contravention of the rules for the
event*, even when that event is using public lands or facilities for
its location. Whether someone denied participation because of such a
refusal would have a discrimination claim against the organizers is a
different matter. The fact is that there is no inherent *right*
conferred by the mere existence of the event.
If the underwriter isn't requiring helmets, perhaps it's time to talk
to the organizers and see why they are not more flexible. It sounds
like you can be persuasive without getting abrasive; use that!
Werehatrack
Asked and answered.
frkr...@yahoo.com
Werehatrack wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2005 20:40:00 -0700, frkr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >It sounds to me like in at least some circumstances, you'd call for a
> >ride home. Am I wrong?
>
> Asked and answered.
Not really. You said "I can't predict the answer."
When someone says they can't predict their own answer, it sounds more
than a little evasive!
What circumstances might lead you to stop riding upon losing your
helmet?
- Frank Krygowski
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.racing gwhite <ra...@crank.com> wrote:
> > Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
>
> Good work. It just doesn't feel like the Tour
> without an out of control a helmet thread.
If nothing else, it shows what a bunch of sane, polite
people hang out in rbr, compared to those flamethrowing
maniacs from rec.bicycles.misc.
Werehatrack
Are there people who'd see if there was one available that they could
borrow before they took that step?
Are there people who might make a different decision if the ride was
rural vs urban, trail vs street, night vs day, short vs long, etc?
I suspect that the answer to each of these could be "yes" in some
circumstances.
I also suspect that the majority, faced with a "ride without or walk"
scenario would ride, in most cases. The helmet is protection from a
low-probability occurrence in most forms of cycling; absent a
requirement (which is not present in everyday riding in most of the
world) helmet usage infers nothing more than that the user finds the
investment (which need not be large) to be worthwhile in view of the
risk. It does not necessarily signify anything else.
By the same token, helmet non-usage does not necessarily indicate
helmet *rejection*, either.
It is perfectly consistent for someone who ordinarily rides with a
helmet by choice to find that riding without a helmet is an acceptable
temporary risk *if the alternate choices available are less
acceptable.* For instance, if the risk of a spill was low, the
environment was not optimal and the hour was late, so that getting
home swiftly would provide greater safety than waiting for a pickup or
walking, I suspect that almost anyone would decide to ride. I could
be wrong. Others might weigh the issues differently, and that's their
prerogative.
Many anti-helmet types seem to make the unwarranted assumption that
all or most helmet wearers are inherently as rabidly pro-helmet as
they are against them, when the reality is that this is not the case.
Do not presume that just because someone *is* wearing a helmet, that
they either have any view about whether someone else should do so, or
would seek to impose any requirements on them. It is as unwarranted
as assuming that because someone doesn't have a helmet on, that they
don't want and/or wouldn't use one. They may just not have the cash,
or they may be one of the unlucky people for whom no helmet (or at
least, none they've tried and/or can afford) fits acceptably. My SO
falls into that category, and she fidgets when I mention going on one
of the evening fun rides where a helmet is required. She'd *like* to
come along, but the closest we've come to finding her an acceptable
helmet has not been close enough. So, we ride our own routes; me with
and her without a helmet. Sooner or later, we'll find one that has
enough ventilation for her, is the right shape internally or can be
padded to work, and doesn't cost over $40, but until then, she doesn't
feel like it's worth the expense. That's her decision to make, and
while I won't stop looking around to see if a potentially acceptable
unit can be located, I'm not going to tell her to stay home until we
find one, either.
(And if we find one with enough ventilation for *her* at that price,
I'm buying one of them for myself, because the cheap Bell I've got can
be a trifle on the sweaty side at times. A little more air flow would
be nice, though I'm not going to leave it home due to that.)
Werehatrack
>
>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>> Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
>> bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
>> difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
>> It's quite literally not my problem.
>
>And you're welcome to wear one. In fact, I invite you to extend your
>logic beyond cycling! After all, when _do_ you "know what's going to
>happen"? Surely you realize that cycling is not even on the map for
>causing serious head injuries, right? Why not wear a helmet for all
>activities that cause head injuries?
Perhaps my habits have nothing to do with statistics or publicity.
Perhaps they were formed long ago because the only four people I've
known who had head injuries got them either on bikes or motorcycles.
It goes back a while. The very first time I loaned a motorcycle
helmet to someone (back in 1971), it was pretty demonstrably
instrumental in keeping a friend's head from being lacerated and more
heavily concussed in a side impact from an automobile running a stop
sign. His leather jacket was shredded off of his shoulder, and the
shoulder got cut up a bit, from the smashed windshiled that he bounced
off of. His shoulder was also dislocated, and he had a broken arm and
leg, and a concussion that was rated as mild with no lasting effects.
The styrofoam padding inside the helmet was *flattened* by the impact.
He was literally riding home from my place when it happened. The
reason I loaned him my helmet was that the one he'd been given by the
bike dealer didn't fit worth a damn; it was two sizes too small, and
was giving him a headache all by itself. (And the sonofabitch never
replaced my damn helmet, either, now that I think about it.)
The next two were both motorcyle broadsides like the first one, and
one of the riders still had trouble talking four years after the hit.
He wasn't wearing a helmet. Can you say "concussion, coma, swelling,
fracture with depression that required surgical intervention, and long
recovery?" Yup. The last one was helmeted. Like the first, he got
torn up, but his head wasn't hurt much; no lasting effects.
The fourth was the only bicyclist. He was one of a pair struck by a
drunk driving a small pickup. Did the helmet save his life? That's
arguable. He went over the cab and landed in the bed of the truck;
the helmet was bashed, but it's hard to say if it was an impact that
would have been potentially fatal. Still, the foam took the hit
instead of the blow going to his head. He was a bit dazed, and had a
mild headache for a few days. He's convinced that the helmet kept him
from being injured more seriously. I wasn't there when it happened,
so I don't know...but given what I saw in the photos he had, the
conclusion seems reasonable.
Of course, motorcycle helmets are a lot more than just a hunk of foam.
But that first bash convinced me that there was something to be said
for having that hunk of foam between the head and the bashing object.
In 1971, as far as I can recall, bicycle helmets pretty much didn't
exist; nobody I knew had one. When they became widely available much
later, though, I didn't need to have someone tell me what they were
good for. I'd already seen it.
>The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet
>promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk.
Incorrect. My *personal* experience has been that *automobiles* pose
a significant risk to me when I'm on a bike out there in their path.
The risk is even greater for motorcycle riders, in my view. I
personally believe that this is because motorcyles can stray into the
car driver's line of travel unnoticed even faster than bicycles can,
and motorcycle riders tend to be less cautious and to ride in more
risky environments than bicyclists. Still, the cars and trucks and
SUVs are a hazard, and it's very real to me.
>If you didn't think cycling caused a special danger, you wouldn't think
>a special hat was necessary.
I don't think ordinary cycling is much of a danger at all, by itself.
But I know that the motor vehicles out there are a *real* danger.
Like I said, I've seen what can happen when a car hits somebody who's
on two wheels. I can't predict that it won't happen to me, I've seen
some of the ways that it can play out, and to me the protection
afforded by a chunk of styrofoam is worth the hassle of its presence.
If you don't think so, fine. Don't wear one. But don't try to
convince me that I'm nuts or deluded or misinformed about the issue
and have been brainwashed into doing something unnecessary, because in
my case, it's *not going to work*.
Werehatrack
>What circumstances might lead you to stop riding upon losing your
>helmet?
I know them when I see them. That's all I can say. (A long run of
crepe myrtle hedge with seed clusters hanging over the only path in an
unavoidable profusion comes to mind as a possible example precisely
because it was damn near enough to make me get off and walk the roadie
through the sodden grass alongside the path instead, even *with* the
helmet to bash them out of the way. Helmets provide more than just
gross injury prevention at times.)
For the most part, though, any immediately identifiable and locally
proximate hazard so great that it strongly mandates a helmet's use
because of a special hazard, is also a place best avoided altogether.
If you know you're going to get hit, don't go there. But it's not the
places where you know you're going to get hit which are the problem;
those can be avoided. My experience has been that it's the hazards
you don't know are approaching until it's much too late to avoid them
which are what the helmet is for...and then a helmet may not be
enough, but it's been better than nothing based on what I've seen in
the past.
Donald Munro
> Good thing he was wearing a helmet.
I hope you realize that, according to the rbr rules and regulations for
2005, trolls involving helmets are disallowed and will not be considered
for the rbr hall of trolling fame.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>In my experience those who choose to ride rebumbents are
>generally really old and feeble and too stupid to just hang onto the bike if
>it tips over thereby protecting your head.
LOL! That would be Sam "81mph" Whittingham, right?
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
Just zis Guy, you know?
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>The doctors are only seeing people who are injured. It's an odd
>sampling of people, and not one to draw any general conclusions from.
That's a true text, brother.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
>><rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
>>>I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
>>>would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
>>>risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
>>>bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
>>>difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
>>>It's quite literally not my problem.
>>
>>What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
>>Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
>
>Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
>based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer,
Can you please, to help us understand your thinking about helmets,
pick your most typical ride, describe it, and let us know whether you
would wear a helmet if for some reason something heppened to it and
you didn't have it for one ride? That wou,ld provide some understand
of your views of your own safety and your general view of the risk of
your own cycling.
Just for a point of reference, I wear a helmet most of the time
because it's easy to do. But with one exception (bike races) my
riding is not so dangerous that if I didn't have a helmet I wouldn't
ride. My own assessement of the risk of typical riding is that it's
not a big risk. If, in my own riding, things were so risky that I
felt a helmet was essential, I'd imagine that the risks to my other
parts (limbs, other bones, etc) would be too much as well and I just
wouldn't ride at all. That's my calculus.
How risky is your typcial ride? Is a helmet essential to it or just a
nice bonus?
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
John Forrest Tomlinson
> I know of one instance where a guy's helmet was stolen
>in the middle of a bike tour.
>
>He rode on. Are there people here who would actually stop riding?
I'm very very curious about that as well.
John Forrest Tomlinson
charity rides where they suggest adults wear helmets -- helmets are
easy to get for most people and can probably help sometimes. But they
don't require it. Bicycling is not *that* dangerous and they'd prefer
people ride w/o a helmet than not ride at all. This is in New York
City.