I crash into religion
Paul Cassel
mph when I hit new paint at the end of a wooden bridge I’ve been over
dozens of times never finding any traction issues. However, sometime
recently, the City decided to put new wood and paint on the bridge. Add
some dew at 0600h and it made for a slippery surface. I skidded sideways
and then, when I hit the tarmac again, I high sided. I was not wearing a
helmet, but have good reflexes in the curl and roll. I ended up with a
terrible case of road rash, my eyeglasses embedded in my cheek (the lens
came out and stuck into my cheek right at the cheekbone) and a lot of
debris embedded into my muscles plus other injuries. I truncated the
ride returning 20 miles instead of the planned 40. My bike sustained
minor injuries with the saddle being the most badly damaged.
Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
wearing a helmet, but ironically, I’ll will buy and from now on wear a
helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
arm and leg. I would guess that had I hit just that way with a hat on,
the visor would have exerted rotational force on my neck making for,
perhaps, much more serious injuries.
However, what will remain with me for a long time, and it was the first
thing I remembered when I woke up there on the bike trail, was the sound
of my face / head hitting. It was a loud crack-like sound. I had some
time to review things on the ride back home and then waiting in the
hospital urgent care to think on things.
I was mentally unprepared for the suddenness and ferocity of this crash.
Had I hit higher up on my head I surely would have had a great chance of
sustaining serious brain injury. Instead of a little nap and a hideous
headache now, (along with at least two weeks off) I may have been
looking at permanent injury or even death. It was the realization that
even at bicycle speeds, something I dismissed before, one can get badly
hurt.
Yes, I’m still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you’ll be
seeing me ride without one from now on.
Sorni
A visor will break off (quite easily) before "exerting rotational force on
{your} neck". Good decision; questionable reasoning.
Bill "glad you weren't hurt worse; heal quickly and fully" S.
Neil Brooks
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>Today I fell down hard on my road bike.
[big ol' snip]
Dude,
I'm sorry you got all banged up. May you heal quickly and ride again
soon.
Not fun....
Werehatrack
experience with oh-s**t moments (including one this AM that was of a
non-bike nature) is that you don't know when or if they're going to
happen; all you can do is figure what the odd look like to you, and
decide what you want to do about it. Sometimes, that's nothing;
sometimes it isn't. To each his own.
Ride on!
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
landotter
a terror as well. Last fall I took a spill on one due to similar loss
of traction. One second I was spinning nicely, the next I was laying on
my hip going WTF?? I got a hip bruise and lost a couple nice old
Cinelli end plugs. Damn you bridge!
Now I slow down and only coast across wooden bridges unless I'm
positively sure they're dry.
You'll heal up fine. I've taken a couple to the face, including going
headfirst into a snowbank at night, losing my glasses in the snow, and
having to ride home, one-handed to keep the blood from gushing out my
eyebrow. Fun for all! Commuting as extreme sport! w00t!
(PeteCresswell)
> I surely would have had a great chance of
>sustaining serious brain injury. Instead of a little nap and a hideous
>headache now, (along with at least two weeks off) I may have been
>looking at permanent injury or even death.
My recollection is that you still might be looking at death. Something about
subdural hematomas swelling up after the fact. Maybe somebody who actually
knows something can comment on this - I think it's a reasonably serious
consideration anytime you get whacked in the melon.
--
PeteCresswell
Sorni
Way to buck the boy up, Pete! <eg>
gol...@gmail.com
slowing building up. Easy to deal with if diagnosed. Rare in younger
people. A MRI scan can exclude them with confidence.
gol...@gmail.com
Never heard that phrase before.
Tosspot
More common in motorcycle riding. The bike slides away from under you
(usually) in a turn, a "low side". If you are really lucky, as the
slide progresses the tyres suddenly gain traction[1]. So, you are
gently moving sideways and all of a sudden the sideways movement stops
and you get 'flicked' over the bike, a "high side".
The sideays movement gets converted into height, and the laws of physics
suddenly look up and demand to know what the hell you are doing up
there. Justice is swiftly dished out, the world carries on knowing that
conservation of energy has not been violated and you add a few civil
engineers to 'Who's going to get it when I go Postal' list.
[1] Usually, but not exclusively, caused by coming off whatever it was
that started the whole shannigans.
Peter Cole
It shouldn't be a blood sport. Not every accident is avoidable, but most
are, including this one. Bike paths often have unique hazards, traps for
the unwary. How many more crashes will be caused by this particular
situation? I hope the OP reports this.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Peter,
(AP-Pueblo, CO)
"Authorities were informed of a recent 6 a.m. bicycle crash
involving a rider who slipped and fell at 25 mph on a
dew-covered wooden bridge that had recently been
re-painted."
"Signs, warning that any surface may be slippery when
covered with early morning dew, are being posted at 100-foot
intervals along the 20-mile ride."
"In related news, Carl Fogel announced that he was damned
glad that Paul Cassel wasn't hurt worse."
"Mr. Fogel added something incoherent about being up at an
ungodly hour himself, having been struck by a thought about
hanging a biccycle wheel from its upper spoke in an
unrelated spoke-testing thread, stated that the accident
confirmed his long-held opinions about early rising, and
went back to bed at 5:52 a.m. MST."
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
diann...@yahoo.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Paul Cassel wrote:
> Today I fell down hard on my road bike. I figure I was going about 25
> mph when I hit new paint at the end of a wooden bridge I've been over
> dozens of times never finding any traction issues. However, sometime
> recently, the City decided to put new wood and paint on the bridge. Add
> some dew at 0600h and it made for a slippery surface. I skidded sideways
> and then, when I hit the tarmac again, I high sided. I was not wearing a
> helmet, but have good reflexes in the curl and roll. I ended up with a
> terrible case of road rash, my eyeglasses embedded in my cheek (the lens
> came out and stuck into my cheek right at the cheekbone) and a lot of
> debris embedded into my muscles plus other injuries. I truncated the
> ride returning 20 miles instead of the planned 40. My bike sustained
> minor injuries with the saddle being the most badly damaged.
>
> Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
> wearing a helmet, but ironically, I'll will buy and from now on wear a
> helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
> only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
> hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
> There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
> arm and leg. I would guess that had I hit just that way with a hat on,
> the visor would have exerted rotational force on my neck making for,
> perhaps, much more serious injuries.
Get rid of those visors, they do nothing but....they are held on with
what, little velcro things or something? I doubt you would have gotten
'serious neck injuries' because of this little piece of plastic. I am
not a helmet nazi but ya know, helmets never hurt, 'may' help. If ths
is a troll, I'll know soon enough.
Mark Hickey
Glad you weren't hurt much worse than you were... this kind of
accident always seems like the kind that happens to "other people",
and is a good example of the kind of thing that can happen when you're
just riding along minding your own business.
>Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
>wearing a helmet, but ironically, I’ll will buy and from now on wear a
>helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
>only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
>hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
>There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
>arm and leg. I would guess that had I hit just that way with a hat on,
>the visor would have exerted rotational force on my neck making for,
>perhaps, much more serious injuries.
As Sorni said, the visors pop off with almost no effort, so it's
unlikely it would have had any effect. Others claim that the
increased radius of a helmeted head will lead to more injuries by
applying more torque to the neck, but I have to believe that the lower
friction of a helmet to road connection (compared to skin to road
connection) would more than offset that.
The bottom line in this kind of "scraping, sliding" crash (to me at
least, YMMV) is that you're going to have to stop by grinding
SOMETHING on the road, and if part of that load is taken by the
helmet, there's some part of your body that's going to get off that
much easier.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Sorni
> Get rid of those visors, they do nothing but....they are held on with
> what, little velcro things or something? I doubt you would have gotten
> 'serious neck injuries' because of this little piece of plastic. I am
> not a helmet nazi but ya know, helmets never hurt, 'may' help.
"Helmets never hurt"??? You haven't been paying attention, Peter. SEVERE
neck injuries from all that "additional rotational weight"! Defelecting
blows to one's jaw! Bigger target for terrorist tree limbs! I'm afraid to
go ride /at all/ now...
And the AHZs say helmet /proponents/ are fear mongers.
BS
tat2...@tattooparadise.com
(snip)
> Yes, I'm still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you'll be
> seeing me ride without one from now on.
Glad that you are okay. I had never wore a helmet in many years of
bicycling. A couple of years ago I was propelling my then 55 year old
body along on my road bike @ about 20 mph doing my Walter Mitty
imitation of Eddy Merckx. I went into a patch of sand on the road that
was deeper then it first appeared. My front tire grabbed and down I
went. I landed on my left shoulder breaking my collarbone and
separating my AC joint. When I hit I saw the asphalt coming to the side
of my head and in that tenth of a second tried to hold my neck muscles
to keep from hitting my head without success. I heard that sickening
popping sound you describe as the side of my head hit the pavement. I
am not sure if I was knocked unconscious. I think I may have been for a
short time. One way or the other I had one hell of a head ache. I lost
five weeks work and five days off the road. Got a stationary trainer
after the first week to maintain some semblance of condition. Once I
was able to get back on the road I have never ridden without a helmet
again and never will. An ounce of prevention.
Good day to all,
Jimmy
tat2...@tattooparadise.com
tat2ji...@tattooparadise.com wrote:
(snip)
I lost
> five weeks work and five days off the road. Got a stationary trainer
> after the first week to maintain some semblance of condition. Once I
> was able to get back on the road I have never ridden without a helmet
> again and never will. An ounce of prevention.
>
> Good day to all,
>
> Jimmy
FWIW, I should have said I lost five weeks off the road and five days
off the bike. Incidentally, I found that using the stationary trainer
an hour a day left me in better condition five weeks later when I was
able to get back on the road then I had been in before the accident. It
also helped my morale a great deal as during my early recovery I was
not a happy camper.
Jimmy
Paul Cassel
Thanks for all the good wishes on this thread. I also appreciate the
info that the visor will break off rather than kill me. I currently am
bidding on a Giro Atmos hat on eBay and will surely get something soon.
I had a good laugh at your post, Carl.
There is a bit of a postscript here. I found myself having nightmares
about that bridge last night so today I (perhaps stupidly) went out on
the single speed to ride the bridge again on the theory of getting back
on the horse. In the end, it was a beautiful day, I was happy to be
alive, I crossed the bridge and went on to finish up a pleasant 40 mile
single speed ride. I'm feeling fine except for being wracked by pain (I
expect that makes sense to all of you here).
Just to make it perfectly clear (to coin a phrase) I consider the crash
to be 100% my fault and none of it the City's. It is my duty to watch
where I'm going as well as assess the surfaces I'm riding on. I did
check the surface today and was astonished at just how slippery it is. I
will advise the City about using sand in its paint to make it a better
grip.
Looking at my clothes, I'm amazed at the damage. For example, my heavy
duty gloves are all but gone. Well, lesson learned and I guess all
people who ride need to take that spill sometime. I've been riding a
year now; my time was ripe.
-paul
(PeteCresswell)
>> My recollection is that you still might be looking at death.
>
Yeah, I just thought it would cheer him up a little bit.
Isn't that how Bruce Lee got it?
--
PeteCresswell
Paul Cassel
get an MRI, but I declined. The impact was all facial with the greatest
injury the eyeglass lens embedding into my cheek. Most of the primary
impact was to my right arm, shoulder and hand (tuck and roll).
Comparatively little impact to my face, but the damage there is most
apparent.
Paul Cassel
>
> Get rid of those visors, they do nothing but....they are held on with
> what, little velcro things or something? I doubt you would have gotten
> 'serious neck injuries' because of this little piece of plastic. I am
> not a helmet nazi but ya know, helmets never hurt, 'may' help. If ths
> is a troll, I'll know soon enough.
Troll in what way? Anyway, I thought the visors were part of the hat
(molded in) rather than attached. You and others set me straight. I
have a bid in for a Giro now.
David L. Johnson
> Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
> wearing a helmet, but ironically, I’ll will buy and from now on wear a
> helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
> only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
> hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
> There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
> arm and leg. I would guess that had I hit just that way with a hat on,
> the visor would have exerted rotational force on my neck making for,
> perhaps, much more serious injuries.
Well, you can get helmets without visors. It might also have kept your
glasses from grinding into your face.
Helmet advocates tend to exaggerate their ability to "save your life",
which is bull, since the sort of accident that will kill a cyclist, say a
head-on with a semi, would not be affected at all by a helmet. But for
this sort of fall, having a helmet can lessen the damage to the face, and
can cut down on the concussion. I wear one all the time, and I wear
gloves. Both offer the same sort of protection against common minor
injuries resulting from falls.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |
wvantwiller
news:frGdneypNL6WisDZ...@comcast.com:
> Today I fell down hard on my road bike. I figure I was going about 25
> mph when I hit new paint at the end of a wooden bridge I’ve been over
> dozens of times never finding any traction issues. However, sometime
> recently, the City decided to put new wood and paint on the bridge. Add
> some dew at 0600h and it made for a slippery surface. I skidded sideways
> and then, when I hit the tarmac again, I high sided. I was not wearing a
> helmet, but have good reflexes in the curl and roll. I ended up with a
> terrible case of road rash, my eyeglasses embedded in my cheek (the lens
> came out and stuck into my cheek right at the cheekbone) and a lot of
> debris embedded into my muscles plus other injuries.
>
....
>
> Yes, I’m still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you’ll be
> seeing me ride without one from now on.
I became pretty religous about wearing a helmet that would keep my
eyeglasses from getting stuffed into my face after I evened up the stitch-
count on my left and right eyebrows.
Whenever I look at the glass lenses from the two 'incidents' I'm always
reminded of what your knuclkes look like after you try to get that last
pass on the grater but lose grip on the the piece of cheese you used to be
grating.
Paul Cassel
>
> Helmet advocates tend to exaggerate their ability to "save your life",
> which is bull, since the sort of accident that will kill a cyclist, say a
> head-on with a semi, would not be affected at all by a helmet. But for
> this sort of fall, having a helmet can lessen the damage to the face, and
> can cut down on the concussion. I wear one all the time, and I wear
> gloves. Both offer the same sort of protection against common minor
> injuries resulting from falls.
>
Didn't mention it, but my gloves are totaled. The right one is in shreds.
Sorni
Taking responsibility for one's actions and decisions?!? Pretty radical,
doncha think?
Glad you're already riding again. Keep healing!
Bill S.
Sorni
Sadly, some on here will flame you (or would like to) for that well-reasoned
decision.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Paul,
To be fair to those concerned enough to advise an MRI, you
can suffer the internal injuries that they mention without
any exterior injury.
We naturally expect a brain injury to involve a dramatic
caved-in skull fracture or a bashed-in face, but it's quite
common for the injury to be what's called rotational--in an
abrupt spin of the head, the soft brain lags behind the hard
skull, not a direct impact, much less a fracture or
penetrating wound.
By coincidence, here's a comment from Friday's short piece
by a reference librarian gone mad about how easy it is to
knock someone out:
"A few basics: First, sudden acceleration or deceleration of
the head seems to be essential. If somebody clouts you from
above, so that your head remains stationary, you may suffer
other injuries but probably no knockout. Second, strong
evidence suggests that a KO requires twisting or rotational
motion--one reason woodpeckers don't beat themselves silly,
it's thought, is that their bills travel straight back and
forth, like a jackhammer. In contrast, a boxer loses
consciousness when a blow causes his brain to slosh and spin
inside the skull."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060505.html
Glad you're feeling better.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Paul Cassel
Thanks. As a note, I have been told on many occasions that the reason
that boxers lose consciousness (get knocked out) is when,
1. They have a sudden head twist (as in left hook to the chin) which
causes an interruption of blood flow to the brain.
2. Their head hits the canvas hard enough to knock them out. That is,
they are knocked down, by a punch, but the impact of their heads on the
floor causes the knockout.
Both scenarios involved acceleration lending credence to your
librarian's research.
I understand the danger of lurking blood leakage problems, but when I
demurred the suggestion to get an MRI, the physician didn't push it
either. I think it was more SOP than her thinking I really needed it. I
did get a rather full body scan via Doppler / ultrasound due to fear of
thrombosis. The reason she did that was due to the incredible amount of
edema due to broken blood vessels. My right arm makes Popeye's look small.
Me. I'm strangely cheerful and no, it isn't the Percosets. I haven't had
one in over 24 hours :)
-paul
Paul Cassel
right off as I did so today, but in a lot of pain when I hit a bump.
Looking backward, I have no idea why I didn't wear a helmet in the past.
Perhaps I just didn't think the likelihood of a crash high enough to
merit one. Or more likely, I dismissed the impact potential of a bicycle
crash.
I had two things to wonder about when I woke up there on the trail. The
first was that awful noise which you had too. Is that really the noise
we make or is it some artifact of our heads becoming an echo chamber for
our hearing sensors? It was sickening.
The second thing was my wonder at how hard I hit. I've been down dozens
of times on the dirt on a bicycle w/o a problem, but this one was like
getting hit by a truck.
I bid too low for that one helmet, but I'll keep at it until I get one.
If I get desperate, I may just hit my LBS and BUY one like a human does <g>.
-paul
jtaylor
"Sorni" <soryousucknyour...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Enr7g.14337$MP2....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> tat2...@tattooparadise.com wrote:
> > Paul Cassel wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >> Yes, I'm still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you'll
> >> be seeing me ride without one from now on.
> >
.
>
> Sadly, some on here will flame you (or would like to) for that
well-reasoned
> decision.
>
>
That's not reason, that's (unreasonable) fear.
Just because an event whose likelyhood is vanishingly small happend to him
and frightened him, he somehow believes that wearing a magic talisman will
protect him an the equally unlikely second ocurrence.
H. Guy
"jtaylor" <jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
> > > Paul Cassel wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >> Yes, I'm still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you'll
> > >> be seeing me ride without one from now on.
>
> That's not reason, that's (unreasonable) fear.
>
> Just because an event whose likelyhood is vanishingly small happend to him
> and frightened him, he somehow believes that wearing a magic talisman will
> protect him an the equally unlikely second ocurrence.
vanishingly small is not zero. having "used" my helmet twice,
maybe "vanishingly small" isn't even accurate. for me. so if
i (or paul, or ANYbody) decides to lessen our chances of injury,
please don't consider it a condemnation of your choice to let
your locks fly free. you want to cycle NAKED, for god's sake,
i don't give a damn. you know, unless i have to actually SEE
you. i'm not as confident as you that, in an accident, i'll be
able to accurately judge my rotation speed and direction and
apply exactly the right counterforce to keep my head level,
my toes aesthetically pointed and my clif bars from sliding
out of my jersey.
p.s.: i don't cross against the light, drink milk past the
expiration date, play "tag" with rottweilers or argue with
my girlfriend when she says we NEED a new chair.
jtaylor
"H. Guy" <Helpf...@helpfulplace.org> wrote in message
news:HelpfulGuy-09D50...@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
> p.s.: i don't cross against the light, drink milk past the
> expiration date, play "tag" with rottweilers or argue with
> my girlfriend when she says we NEED a new chair.
Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar?
(PeteCresswell)
>Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar?
No, but OTOH I don't normally fall out of my car headfirst on to ground with
baby head rocks and/or sharp corners of buried boulders sticking out of it
here-and-there.
--
PeteCresswell
jtaylor
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:rdus5257ojfm5pg4h...@4ax.com...
But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle - such events are
more likely when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar. Why do you wear a
helmet in the less dangerous situation but not the more?
(PeteCresswell)
>But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle
Depends on the terrain and how aggressive and/or inept the rider is.
My personal attitude adjustment came one day when I'd just hopped some railroad
tracks and was going up through a clay ravine. Front wheel washed out in the
wet clay, melon went "splat" sideways on the ground. When I came to, I noted a
pointed pyramid-shaped outcropping several inches high just a few inches from
where my temple impacted.
About a year later I forgot that I didn't have knobbies on, jumped a curb onto
an inclined bank. Front wheel washed out again, side face plant into the bank.
No rocks this time - but I was still glad to be wearing a helmet.
Hot day? Bike path? Baseball cap. No sense being obsessive about this.
But helmets definitely have their time and place.
--
PeteCresswell
Paul Cassel
>
>
> But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle - such events are
> more likely when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar. Why do you wear a
> helmet in the less dangerous situation but not the more?
>
>
I am not relying on anything. My reason for using a helmet from now on
is that I have learned by experience how forceful a bicycle crash can
be. Before, I figured a bicycle crash was a mild occurrence. I now don't
think that.
What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
never wearing the hat?
Again, what is the downside here?
Patrick Lamb
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>
>I bid too low for that one helmet, but I'll keep at it until I get one.
>If I get desperate, I may just hit my LBS and BUY one like a human does <g>.
FWIW, the cheapest helmet prices I've seen have been at two of my
LBSs. (Not counting the Wally-World trash.) I think it's because
most LBSs need to sell what they stock, and don't have the clientele
of the mail-order houses to get the volume up to an profitable level.
Pat
Email address works as is.
Sorni
> tat2...@tattooparadise.com wrote:
>> tat2ji...@tattooparadise.com wrote:
>> (snip)
>> I lost
>>> five weeks work and five days off the road. Got a stationary
>>> trainer after the first week to maintain some semblance of
>>> condition. Once I was able to get back on the road I have never
>>> ridden without a helmet again and never will. An ounce of
>>> prevention. Good day to all,
>>>
>>> Jimmy
>>
>> FWIW, I should have said I lost five weeks off the road and five days
>> off the bike. Incidentally, I found that using the stationary trainer
>> an hour a day left me in better condition five weeks later when I was
>> able to get back on the road then I had been in before the accident.
>> It also helped my morale a great deal as during my early recovery I
>> was not a happy camper.
>>
>> Jimmy
>>
> Glad to hear that you are ok after all. It seems that I can ride again
> right off as I did so today, but in a lot of pain when I hit a bump.
> Looking backward, I have no idea why I didn't wear a helmet in the
> past. Perhaps I just didn't think the likelihood of a crash high
> enough to merit one. Or more likely, I dismissed the impact potential of a
> bicycle crash.
You're injured, so hopefully no one will attck you for that <eg>.
> I had two things to wonder about when I woke up there on the trail.
> The first was that awful noise which you had too. Is that really the
> noise we make or is it some artifact of our heads becoming an echo chamber
> for our hearing sensors? It was sickening.
>
> The second thing was my wonder at how hard I hit. I've been down
> dozens of times on the dirt on a bicycle w/o a problem, but this one was
> like
> getting hit by a truck.
>
> I bid too low for that one helmet, but I'll keep at it until I get
> one. If I get desperate, I may just hit my LBS and BUY one like a human
> does <g>.
Dude, are these NEW helmets you're bidding on? Sure hope so. (Otherwise,
fergawdsake go to an LBS and buy a nice new non-stanky one.)
Bill "and take my preposition...please!" S.
Sorni
NONE OF YOUR BIDNESS.
HTH, BS
Sorni
See? You're an illogical jerk /without/ the subject being MHLs.
HTH, BS
Sorni
Disagreeing with an over-emotional ideologue.
HTH, BS
Leo Lichtman
"jtaylor" wrote: Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a
motorcar?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll answer your rhetorical question with one of my own: Does your bicycle
have a seatbelt, shoulder harness, airbag and crush zone in front?
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Leo,
His point is probably that bicycles have a much better
record than cars when it comes to deaths and serious head
injuries, despite their lack of such safety equipment.
It's as if bicyling is inherently safer than driving on just
about every scale of measurement.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
frkr...@gmail.com
Paul Cassel wrote:
>
>
> What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
> now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
> downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
> off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
> say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
> hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
> never wearing the hat?
>
> Again, what is the downside here?
One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.
Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
stationary bike.
So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.
You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."
Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.
- Frank Krygowski
Tony Raven
>
> Again, what is the downside here?
Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.
Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
cyclists.
Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of them.
So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
Sorni
Condescend much?
Simon Brooke
('pcassel...@comremovecast.net') wrote:
> What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
> choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is
> the downside of helmet use?
Statistically, an increased risk of death and serious injury. No, I don't
know why. It may simply be that people are more likely to wear helmets
when doing things they know to be risky. Or it may be a consequence of
the helmet increasing the size and weight of the head, or of increased
rotational injury.
Anecdotal data doesn't help much in understanding this. But here's an
anecdotal data point which might interest you. Two weeks ago I was out
with a group doing Mountain Bike Leader training, and I was wearing a
helmet - something I very rarely do.
I fell. My back wheel lost grip on a fast muddy bend and I went down
hard. My head - or rather my helmet - hit the ground for the first time
ever, after literally thousands of mountain bike falls. It was, as such
falls often are, quite sudden and I had little time to react to it. I
obviously can't say for certain that had I not been wearing a helmet my
head would not have hit the ground. But it's interesting that it did.
> Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike.
> I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat
> by that than never wearing the hat?
Not if wearing a hat increases your chance of getting killed. Which, on
current statistical data, seems to be the case. A lot more serious study
is needed here, but nobody seems to be doing it.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995
Richard
> What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
> now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
> downside of helmet use?
There is evidence that cycle helmets, particularly the ones with
elongated peaks and rear peaks, can cause sharp twisting of the head in
a crash. This can lead to serious brain damage.
There is evidence that cycle helmet wearers are more likely to be
seriously injured/killed than bareheaded cyclists.
There is evidence that increased helmet use leads to decreased cycling
numbers, as wearing a helmet sends the message that cycling is a
dangerous activity, which it isn't. Decreased cycling numbers leads to
increased cyclist death/injury rates for the cyclists that remain.
See www.cyclehelmets.org for the references to the above evidence.
These are the downsides.
The upside, as far as I can see, is that it protects you against some
minor head injuries (bruising, scrapes).
It doesn't seem to me that their benefits outweigh their disbenefits.
R.
Richard
> Hot day? Bike path? Baseball cap.
Even though bike paths are more dangerous than roads?
> No sense being obsessive about this.
No sense in getting the facts wrong, either.
> But helmets definitely have their time and place.
Indeed. They could be considered if cycling seriously off-road when
falling over is par for the course. They would also, if worn by car
occupants, be more beneficial than if worn by cyclists.
R.
Colin McKenzie
> It's all black and white isn't it?
No, it's all relative.
> Helmets are dangerous.
Compared to not wearing them, it would appear so. But not by much.
> Cycling isn't dangerous.
Compared to walking, it isn't. In some countries and some age groups
it's also safer than driving (per mile in both cases).
> Helmets make you ride like an idiot.
A theory that may help explain the data.
> Cycle paths are more dangerous than roads.
Cycle paths alongside roads, yes. Other cycle paths, hard to say - the
risks tend to be different.
> Everyone who says that helmets have prevented their heads from being
> bashed are either a) liars or b) obviously brain damaged from the
> impact.
No. They could be right. It's saying a helmet has saved your life that
is almost certainly wrong.
They have failed to understand the difference between saving a
headache and saving your life.
They have failed to understand that skulls are stronger than cycle
helmets.
They have failed to understand that hitting your helmet does not
necessarily mean you would have hit your head without it.
They have failed to understand that there are as many corpses out
there whose helmets have cost them their lives as living people whose
helmets have genuinely saved them. And both numbers are tiny compared
to the 'destroyed helmet, must have saved my life' brigade.
> Statistics are always correct. Unless they disagree. Then, only the
> ones you agree with are correct.
In general, go with the largest sample sizes and the methodology in
which you can find least bias.
> I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. :rolleyes:
If you weigh the evidence and then decide, you can.
Where did this thread come from, anyway?
Colin McKenzie
--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.
Paul Cassel
>
> Dude, are these NEW helmets you're bidding on? Sure hope so. (Otherwise,
> fergawdsake go to an LBS and buy a nice new non-stanky one.)
>
Yeah, they are new. I will also head out to an LBS to see what they
have. The LBS where I take my bike for service doesn't stock much in the
way of clothing. It's one of those cave places where I get great work
done on my bike, but little in the boutique side of things.
Per Patrick, I'll surely check the prices on hats while out shopping at
other LBS's.
-paul
Paul Cassel
>> Again, what is the downside here?
>
> One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
> are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
> little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
> known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
> thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.
>
> Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
> refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
> certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
> procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
> drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
> stationary bike.
>
> So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
> mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
> vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.
>
>
> You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
> mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
> might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
> useless."
>
> Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.
>
I agree with you and have myself made that argument to my friend who
rides in a full armor suit on a bicycle or motorcycle. He recently took
a stop light tip over on his Ducati which broke his leg, knee, shoulder
and ribs and maybe more. His speed was maybe 3 mph.
Given that most of my injuries are not to my head, but body, I doubt
I'll consider wearing a hat as proof against injury. I only mentioned my
head injuries because these are ones which a hat may have mitigated.
I come to bicycling from motorcycling where we've moved to full coverage
hats due to facial injuries in open or 'cop' helmets. While I believe
that a helmet will make me a bit safer, I think we all need to make our
choices.
Here I can choose to wear or not wear as well as take greater chances if
I wear. It's the choice I wish to preserve rather than sell you on my
new religion.
-paul
Paul Cassel
I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
same chance of injury.
Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer or I can choose
to ride harder and be as safe due to the hat. In all cases, the choice
is mine which is why I said I am still anti mandatory hat laws. I'm also
against seat belt laws, crash laws for cars and many other items part of
daily life.
Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?
-paul
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Sorni wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Get rid of those visors, they do nothing but....they are held on with
> > what, little velcro things or something? I doubt you would have gotten
> > 'serious neck injuries' because of this little piece of plastic. I am
> > not a helmet nazi but ya know, helmets never hurt, 'may' help.
>
> "Helmets never hurt"??? You haven't been paying attention, Peter. SEVERE
> neck injuries from all that "additional rotational weight"! Defelecting
> blows to one's jaw! Bigger target for terrorist tree limbs! I'm afraid to
> go ride /at all/ now...
>
> And the AHZs say helmet /proponents/ are fear mongers.
>
> BS
Yep, I've heard of all this crappola....
Paul Cassel
rotational force of what I called the 'visor' making me worse off. Folks
in this group disagreed.
I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was* operating
in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my daughter. I
was in training and going as hard as I could during a sprint.
I came off of a hill down into a left turn, then a flat into another
left turn and then up a whoop de doo and then down a hill which ended at
a bridge itself a downward slope. The bridge terminated with a need to
make a 75 degree turn or hit a wall. I was full out and I usually am
about 25 mph at that point, but I have no way to see over the whoop.
This is clearly anti-social behavior as for all I know instead of the
wet on the bridge, I may have run into a troop of girl scouts. I feel ok
doing this at 0600h but not at 0800h.
Will I wear a hat whilst out on a sunny day riding at 6 mph with my
daughter or with my friend Karen who is recovering from severe cancer?
Probably not, but my training runs will surely be with hat.
In the end, I doubt we disagree.
-paul
David Martin
Paul Cassel wrote:
> I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
> I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
> That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
> same chance of injury.
Unless you over-compensate for the protective effects of said
equipment.
> Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer or I can choose
> to ride harder and be as safe due to the hat.
But are you aware just how much smaller that harder is than you think
it is?
For example, if you are heading down a hill on road at 50km/h
bareheaded, what increase in speed could you gain from wearing a helmet
whilst keeping the same degree of safety?
Assuming that the helmet is rated to protect at 12km/h, that gives you
an extra 1.4km/h to play with.
..d
Richard
>> So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head
>> injury wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation
>> by the cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size
>> a helmet adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly
>> there.
>>
> I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
> I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
> That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
> same chance of injury.
Not necessarily. Risk compensation is not a conscious choice.
> Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer
Again, not necessarily. Leaving aside your attempt to mitigate against
risk compensation, if you are involved in any sort of crash where the
helmet twists your head, you may well be less safe, for example.
> Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
> crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?
The question is flawed; had you been wearing a helmet, it is extremely
unlikely that you would have ridden in the way you did, that other
people would have interacted you in the way they/you did, or that you
would have crashed "identically" to the way you did.
R.
Clive George
news:X-OdnbHJiqBqCcPZ...@comcast.com...
> Again, what is the downside here?
Arguments from other posters have concentrated on the safety aspect of
helmets. Nobody's mentioned the other aspects : comfort, convenience being
the two which seem most important.
The latter is especially relevant to utility cycling. If, like millions of
people do every day in Europe, you're popping to the shops/going to the
pub/cinema/whatever, it's a hassle to carry a large plastic lump with you
when you're off the bike, and leaving it on the bike isn't really a sensible
option.
Comfort is more debatable. Many say once they got used to them, they don't
notice their helmets when they're on. OTOH those who have converted from
being 100% helmet wearers tend to say it's more comfortable without.
cheers,
clive
Paul Cassel
>
> Not necessarily. Risk compensation is not a conscious choice.
>
Richard, David and others who are arguing risk compensation, I don't
think this an issue with me personally. I have been riding motorcycles
since I was 17, have more miles on them than cars / trucks and have
never been down on the road. I moved from no helmet to a half to now a
full over the years with no increase in crash occurrences (always zero).
I think your comments valid which is why we all should remain united in
opposition to mandatory helmet laws or other mandatory safety laws of
any nature.
-paul
Paul Cassel
>
> Where did this thread come from, anyway?
>
My OP and then someone x-posted to a UK group.
-paul
Peter Clinch
> Comfort is more debatable. Many say once they got used to them, they
> don't notice their helmets when they're on.
I found this was often the case when I wore one daily, but "often the
case" is not always. The bigger the ride and the hotter the day the
more it's an issue.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Ian Smith
On Mon, 08 May 2006, Paul Cassel <pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
> crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?
It's worth noting that when this exact same question has been put to
expert witnesses in court, even teh expert witness appointed by teh
party trying to argue that cyclists should wear a helmet has refused
to state that teh victim would have been better off helmeted.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Peter Clinch
> I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
> I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
> That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
> same chance of injury.
Only if your personal risk-o-meter has guaged the risks correctly, which
since it's going on gut feeling is not necessarily the case!
Since the Really Nasty impacts on a bike are when motor vehicles get
involved, and there's nothing in the EN1078 cycle helmet spec which
suggests a lid will be any help at all in such cases, so if your
behaviour modification increases your chances of mixing it with motor
vehicles then you've just significantly upped not only your chances of
an injury, but a significant one your helmet will not mitigate usefully.
> Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer or I can choose
> to ride harder and be as safe due to the hat.
Again, /only/ true if your personal assessment of the dangers happens to
be a perfect reflection of reality. Unlikely!
> In all cases, the choice
> is mine which is why I said I am still anti mandatory hat laws. I'm also
> against seat belt laws, crash laws for cars and many other items part of
> daily life.
Good for you, but the issue here is there can be a downside of wearing a
hat.
> Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
> crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?
Impossible to say without an otherwise identical crash. There are
factors from the greater size and weight and different shape of a
helmeted head that make it possible to aggravate certain injuries, as
well as to mitigate others.
Richard
> I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was* operating
> in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my daughter. I
> was in training and going as hard as I could during a sprint.
Fair enough - you were in a situation where you are much more likely to
crash. However, /in that particular situation/, do you think that a
helmet was likely to be of benefit, given that they are designed to
counter an impact equivalent roughly to falling sideways off a
stationary bike? Hitting something at 25 mph is exceeding their design
specification at least an order of magnitude. Now, there certainly are
helmets out there that are designed to deal with this sort of impact;
motorcycle helmets. But I'm sure you'll know they're hot and sweaty and
most unsuited for bicycling. :-)
R.
Richard
> Richard, David and others who are arguing risk compensation, I don't
> think this an issue with me personally. I have been riding motorcycles
> since I was 17, have more miles on them than cars / trucks and have
> never been down on the road. I moved from no helmet to a half to now a
> full over the years with no increase in crash occurrences (always zero).
Congratulations, genuinely, and I hope it remains so. However, when
you accumulate the numbers from anything from small groups up to
population level, they /do/ show risk compensation in action. May you
long remain an outrider. ;-)
> I think your comments valid which is why we all should remain united in
> opposition to mandatory helmet laws or other mandatory safety laws of
> any nature.
I beg to differ. I certainly don't want to live somewhere where /I/
have to request that management shuts down all the elevators in a
building that I enter for the first time, so that I can get a tame
engineer to test the safety brakes, and I don't think the airlines would
take kindly to me demanding to crawl over the plane's innards to check
for metal fatigue every time I fly. I suspect you might have been
talking about Personal Protective Equipment? :-)
R.
Mark Hickey
>Paul Cassel wrote:
>>
>> What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
>> now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
>> downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
>> off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
>> say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
>> hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
>> never wearing the hat?
>>
>> Again, what is the downside here?
>
>One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
>are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
>little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
>known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
>thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.
Paul has already stated that he knows the limitations of the
protection helmets do offer. He's not overestimating the protection
of the helmet. He is not assuming the helmet causes him to be
"significantly protected".
So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Mark Hickey
>Paul Cassel wrote:
>>
>> Again, what is the downside here?
>
>Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
>surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
>positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
>
>Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
>cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
>ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.
The same would be true of adult riders as well, though the correlation
is backwards. The majority of helmeted cyclists I see tend to be
"serious cyclists" who ride much faster, for many more miles. Of
course they'll experience more overall accidents, and their bikes will
sustain more damage (if only because it's hard to "damage" many of the
"DUI bikes that are invariably ridden slowly without helmets).
>Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
>Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
>cyclists.
>
>Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
>Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of them.
And nearly all of them ride at a very, very leisurely pace. It's the
same in China - almost no helmets, but I run faster than they cycle.
Apples and oranges when it comes to the group of people discussing
this issue, IMHO.
>So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
>wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
>cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
>adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.
That's nonsense, IMHO. Correlation to MHL or no, I find it hard to
believe that if you knew you were going to be involved in an accident
where your head was going to strike something solid... say
http://www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html ... that you'd choose to go
without a helmet.
Peter Clinch
> That's nonsense, IMHO. Correlation to MHL or no, I find it hard to
> believe that if you knew you were going to be involved in an accident
> where your head was going to strike something solid... say
> http://www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html ... that you'd choose to go
> without a helmet.
But (a) you don't know that and (b) expert witnesses have stated in
court of law that you cannot reasonably say that you /will/ be better
off in a hat.
And (c) the same argument applies to using stairs, which claim plenty of
lives when folk fall down them. So do you wear a helmet to tackle
stairs? If not, why not? Same logic, after all.
Richard
>>So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
>>wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
>>cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
>>adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.
>
>
> That's nonsense, IMHO.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the majority of the statistics
support Tony Raven's quote, rather than your opinion.
> believe that if you knew you were going to be involved in an accident
> where your head was going to strike something solid... say
> http://www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html ... that you'd choose to go
> without a helmet.
How many crashes are there where you *knew* you were going to be
involved in such an accident (before setting off that morning, that is).
If you genuinely knew, would you really set off, helmetted or not?
R.
Clive George
news:sggu525tfjru7a3d0...@4ax.com...
> So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
> original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
I think I answered that one. Nobody's disputed it yet - the one reply so far
said I was understating one of the problems I mentioned.
cheers,
clive
Mark McNeill
> Paul has already stated that he knows the limitations of the
> protection helmets do offer. He's not overestimating the protection
> of the helmet. He is not assuming the helmet causes him to be
> "significantly protected".
>
> So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
> original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
Wearing something less than optimally comfortable is one; wearing
something which makes your head bigger, heavier and thus more liable to
be hit is another.
As to risk compensation, you seem to be making three errors here:
believing that risk compensation is a "straw man", assuming that it's
subject to conscious assessment, and assuming that the other road users
who interact with him won't make any wrong decisions based on their own
misperceptions of his safety.
Come to think of it, I've got a question for the panel. I've come off
my bike three times in my adult life: once, my head went nowhere near
the road, and the other two times I fell sideways, or forward-and-
sideways, such that my head didn't quite make contact. I wasn't wearing
a helmet: should I have been wearing one, or not?
Sig generator is on form, I see. ;-)
--
Mark, UK
"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but
not when it misses."
Mike Reed
Paul Cassel wrote:
> Today I fell down hard on my road bike. I figure I was going about 25
> mph when I hit new paint at the end of a wooden bridge I've been over
> dozens of times never finding any traction issues. However, sometime
> recently, the City decided to put new wood and paint on the bridge. Add
> some dew at 0600h and it made for a slippery surface. I skidded sideways
> and then, when I hit the tarmac again, I high sided. I was not wearing a
> helmet, but have good reflexes in the curl and roll. I ended up with a
> terrible case of road rash, my eyeglasses embedded in my cheek (the lens
> came out and stuck into my cheek right at the cheekbone) and a lot of
> debris embedded into my muscles plus other injuries. I truncated the
> ride returning 20 miles instead of the planned 40. My bike sustained
> minor injuries with the saddle being the most badly damaged.
>
> Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
> wearing a helmet, but ironically, I'll will buy and from now on wear a
> helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
> only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
> hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
> There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
> arm and leg. I would guess that had I hit just that way with a hat on,
> the visor would have exerted rotational force on my neck making for,
> perhaps, much more serious injuries.
>
> However, what will remain with me for a long time, and it was the first
> thing I remembered when I woke up there on the bike trail, was the sound
> of my face / head hitting. It was a loud crack-like sound. I had some
> time to review things on the ride back home and then waiting in the
> hospital urgent care to think on things.
>
> I was mentally unprepared for the suddenness and ferocity of this crash.
> Had I hit higher up on my head I surely would have had a great chance of
> sustaining serious brain injury. Instead of a little nap and a hideous
> headache now, (along with at least two weeks off) I may have been
> looking at permanent injury or even death. It was the realization that
> even at bicycle speeds, something I dismissed before, one can get badly
> hurt.
>
> Yes, I'm still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you'll be
> seeing me ride without one from now on.
It's amazing the feeling of security you get on a bike when you
consider how temporary your state is and how actively you have to work
to maintain it.
I road-raced seriously for about 5 years, and was only involved in one
crash, in my 5th season. I had attacked with a friend on the last lap,
and I couldn't hang with him after my breakaway effort (I led -- too
hard). Looking over my shoulder, I saw that another rider had countered
and was bridging. I sat up and waited for him. When he got there, I was
so happy to get on somebody's wheel, that I forgot I was on somebody's
wheel. I crossed and swept his rear wheel and went down hard at 32 mph
(he stayed up, as is normal with a wheel-sweep).
The road rash from that crash was simply astounding. I ground half of
my right ass-cheek completely off. As far as I could tell, no helmet or
head impacts occured at all. It really struck me how easily it
happened, when everything was going just perfect earlier in the day. In
a flash, I went from a likely 2nd place finish (I'm a sprinter, so, you
know...) to a DNF and injuries to nurse.
I'm glad you're going to be ok. Keep the rubber side down.
-Mike
(PeteCresswell)
>So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
>original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
Sweat.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>Even though bike paths are more dangerous than roads?
I don't think it's the bike paths or the roads that are dangerous.
I think it's the other bikers (on bike paths) and the cars/trucks on the roads
that are the problem.
Where I live, talking on a cell phone while driving 15-20 mph over the limit has
become the norm - as a bike rider, it hardly even worries me any more. What
worries me now are the ones doing email on their Blackberries and text messaging
on their cell phones.
Collision with a kid on a bike vs getting clipped by a car doing 40 mph more
than I am? No contest.
I'd think that any study that concluded that bike paths are more dangerous than
roads:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Was done before cell phones/text messaging/email were in use by drivers
and/or
- Ignored severity of injury
and/or
- Was performed in some area of the world other than Southeastern Pennsylvania.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>Statistically, an increased risk of death and serious injury. No, I don't
>know why. It may simply be that people are more likely to wear helmets
>when doing things they know to be risky. Or it may be a consequence of
>the helmet increasing the size and weight of the head, or of increased
>rotational injury.
One thing that comes to mind is a story about British infantry helmets.
Dunno if I've got it exactly right or not, but at some point after shrapnel
became a factor the British army started having their soldiers wear protective
helmets.
Injuries rose sharply.
The reason: more people were surviving otherwise-fatal events.
--
PeteCresswell
Sandy
> Paul Cassel wrote:
>
>> I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was*
>> operating in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my
>> daughter. I was in training and going as hard as I could during a
>> sprint.
>
> Fair enough - you were in a situation where you are much more likely
> to crash. However, /in that particular situation/, do you think that
> a helmet was likely to be of benefit, given that they are designed to
> counter an impact equivalent roughly to falling sideways off a
> stationary bike?
That last bit is a bunch of crap. Helmets are NOT designed to be
effective for such a fall ; rather, they gain certification depending on
their performances to a specified standard in such a fall. Completely
different, as are most of the lies of AHZ's. Helmets, I'll wager, are
designed to minimize the level of injury to the head at all speeds and
angles when they may be called into use.
Similar lie : that those who would wear a helmet are saying bicycling is
dangerous. No, wearers are not saying that. In fact, all activities
have inherent risks at relative levels. Cooking is risky ; I have spent
a moment wondering about what activity has zero risk, and I can't.
Wearing a helmet only suggests that the person doing so believes that
some risks are reduced. Only a real bozo believes it makes him/her
immortal. Not total reduction of all risks, but some reduction of
related risks. Wearing a helmet does nothing to help the shredding of
your shorts while you slide on asphalt. That's another risk, and some
folks figure, perhaps, that it's one that is not worth complicating with
kevlar body armor. Scars are so cool to compare, later in cycling life.
> Hitting something at 25 mph is exceeding their design specification at
> least an order of magnitude.
Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
And they're more aero than hair in the wind. That's for those who
_actually_ go 25 miles an hour. Not for those who walk their bike
alongside every real or imagined threat to this activity.
Risk compensation ? I just want to go as fast as I did 30 years ago ; I
take the maximum level of risk I am comfortable with regardless of a
helmet. In fact, no fall is fun, whether or not the head is involved.
At least my descending has improved, with additional weight and little
increase of frontal area.
--
Banzai !!
Sandy
Erik Sandblom
landotter på land...@gmail.com den 06-05-07 04.04:
> Wooden bridges are deathtraps. The slime that builds up on them can be
> a terror as well. Last fall I took a spill on one due to similar loss
> of traction. One second I was spinning nicely, the next I was laying on
> my hip going WTF?? I got a hip bruise and lost a couple nice old
> Cinelli end plugs. Damn you bridge!
>
> Now I slow down and only coast across wooden bridges unless I'm
> positively sure they're dry.
>
> You'll heal up fine. I've taken a couple to the face, including going
> headfirst into a snowbank at night, losing my glasses in the snow, and
> having to ride home, one-handed to keep the blood from gushing out my
> eyebrow. Fun for all! Commuting as extreme sport! w00t!
Wood bridges are terrible. It's not just the moss, they can be frosty too. A
bridge freezes much more easily than the road, so can be slippery for that
reason if the night was cold. And then there's dew. Whereas the sun might
dry the road quickly, the colder temperature at a bridge will make it wet
for longer, especially if it crosses a body of water which reduces
temperature and increases humidity.
I've seen enough slippy wood that I consider it icy, even without thinking.
--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary
Peter Clinch
> That last bit is a bunch of crap. Helmets are NOT designed to be
> effective for such a fall ; rather, they gain certification depending on
> their performances to a specified standard in such a fall. Completely
> different, as are most of the lies of AHZ's. Helmets, I'll wager, are
> designed to minimize the level of injury to the head at all speeds and
> angles when they may be called into use.
A wager you'd probably lose, or they'd all cost the same and be built to
the same standards. Given that the protection offered is necessarily a
compromise with ventilation and light weight, both of which are seen as
desirable (if not, why is that what the manufacturers concentrate on
their advertisements, rather than the protection offered?), it wouldn't
be at all surprising that they are made as light as possible while still
conforming to the standard. More expensive helmets are more expensive
because they require more elaborate contstruction at lighter weights and
with more holes to meet the test requirements. If helmets were built to
deliberately exceed the requirements then they'd be heavier.
A question for you... since you believe the manufacturers are going out
of their way to maximise protection, why was the EN1078 standard that
they basically wrote themselves to supersede Snell standards actually
less protective tahn those they largely replaced?
> Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
Which tend to converge when exceeding the cert. standard (a) increases
your costs and (b) adds to negative points such as greater weight and
poorer comfort.
Mark McNeill
> Similar lie : that those who would wear a helmet are saying bicycling is
> dangerous. No, wearers are not saying that.
Unfortunately, wearers don't have a lot of say in how actions like
helmet-wearing are interpreted; unless their helmets come with a big
flag saying "Although I'm wearing safety equipment to do this, it isn't
dangerous really".
(And if they did, would they be believed?)
--
Mark, UK
"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created
the Earth."
41
Paul Cassel wrote:
> Today I fell down hard on my road bike. I figure I was going about 25
> mph when I hit new paint at the end of a wooden bridge I've been over
> dozens of times never finding any traction issues. However, sometime
> recently, the City decided to put new wood and paint on the bridge. Add
> some dew at 0600h and it made for a slippery surface. I skidded sideways
> and then, when I hit the tarmac again, I high sided. I was not wearing a
> helmet, but have good reflexes in the curl and roll. I ended up with a
> terrible case of road rash, my eyeglasses embedded in my cheek (the lens
> came out and stuck into my cheek right at the cheekbone) and a lot of
> debris embedded into my muscles plus other injuries. I truncated the
> minor injuries with the saddle being the most badly damaged.
>
> Evaluating the crash, I figure that I may have been more badly hurt
> helmet when riding. This sounds paradoxical, but here is my logic. The
> only place I hit was my face from the cheek down. I hit the glasses very
> hard, scraped away a lot of skin from my face, nose, upper lip and chin.
> There are other lower body injuries as well including a badly hurt right
> arm and leg.
>
> I was mentally unprepared for the suddenness and ferocity of this crash.
> Had I hit higher up on my head I surely would have had a great chance of
> sustaining s erious brain injury. Instead of a little nap and a hideous
> headache now, (along with at least two weeks off) I may have been
> looking at permanent injury or even death. It was the realization that
> even at bicycle speeds, something I dismissed before, one can get badly
> hurt.
>
> Yes, I'm still opposed to mandatory helmet laws, but I doubt you'll be
> seeing me ride without one from now on.
First off, best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Now to dissect the accident, and the responses (yours and others) to
it.
I find it amazing that some of the most important points have been
ignored:
1. One shouldn't ride for some time (minimum 48 hours, better several
days) after such an impact. There can be some injured tissue "just
hanging on" which will break up from jolts, leading to bleeding in the
brain.
2. Why has no one mentioned the most obvious thing: you were wearing a
piece of safety equipment that failed miserably: your glasses. The most
obvious, logical safety step you can take is to get a more appropriate
pair.
3. Suppose the same accident had occurred, but you were wearing a
helmet. Would you have been better off? The knowledge to answer that
question does not exist. You were worried about the visor, but forget
that: some helmets are already shaped like a visor. You might have
gotten a very suprising whack. Or not. The best you might do is strap
on the candidate helmet, and put your face to the ground in the
position of impact, and see how the angle of your head would have
changed, etc.
4. You took responsibility for the accident and said it was your fault,
and perhaps it was (see below), but the city added a contributing
factor that will surely cause further injuries to other riders. You
have a duty to complain. Don't wait for sand in the paint (which might
not be effective), signs should be posted immediately and they should
realize this for other situations.
#I *was* operating
#in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my daughter. I
#was in training and going as hard as I could during a sprint.
# I came off of a hill down into a left turn, then a flat into another
#left turn and then up a whoop de doo and then down a hill which ended
at
#a bridge itself a downward slope. The bridge terminated with a need to
#make a 75 degree turn or hit a wall. I was full out and I usually am
#about 25 mph at that point, but I have no way to see over the whoop.
#This is clearly anti-social behavior as for all I know instead of the
#wet on the bridge, I may have run into a troop of girl scouts. I feel
ok
#doing this at 0600h but not at 0800h.
5. Your immediate reaction was to wear a helmet from now on, but not to
change your riding. ??? If you do not have visibility and you are going
at accident speed, you are not riding responsibly, for yourself or
others. Doesn't matter what the hour is, others have the right to use
the road at the same time, and even if no one else is there, you are,
and wasn't it you this time who got injured anyway. Want to prevent
such crashes? Never over-ride your visibility. It amazes me, these
stories of people going blind at 25mph. Yours is the second one in a
matter of a few days, same result. Should anything else be expected?
á
(PeteCresswell)
>I'd think that any study that concluded that bike paths are more dangerous than
>roads:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- Was done before cell phones/text messaging/email were in use by drivers
> and/or
>- Ignored severity of injury
> and/or
>- Was performed in some area of the world other than Southeastern Pennsylvania.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Considered marked bike lanes on regular streets to be "bike paths"
as opposed to dedicated mini-roads for bicycles that aren't anywhere
near to moving motor vehicles.
--
PeteCresswell
Richard
>> Fair enough - you were in a situation where you are much more likely
>> to crash. However, /in that particular situation/, do you think that
>> a helmet was likely to be of benefit, given that they are designed to
>> counter an impact equivalent roughly to falling sideways off a
>> stationary bike?
>
>
> That last bit is a bunch of crap. Helmets are NOT designed to be
> effective for such a fall ;
Go back and read again what I said. Note particularly that I didn't say
that they are designed to be effective for such a fall; I said that they
were designed to counter an impact *equivalent roughly* to falling
sideways.
> different, as are most of the lies of AHZ's. Helmets, I'll wager, are
> designed to minimize the level of injury to the head at all speeds and
> angles when they may be called into use.
You'll wager? I have the design specs of the helmets here. I also
have a video of a Japanese gentleman doing a measured 100 mph down the
side of a volcano, when his headset fell off. Are you seriously
telling me that in those design specs, there is a section marked
"minimizing level of injury to riders in 100 mph impacts travelling down
45 degree scree slopes"? So what will you wager? If, in fact, you
bother to read the design specs, you'll see that they do nothing of the
kind.
> Similar lie : that those who would wear a helmet are saying bicycling is
> dangerous. No, wearers are not saying that. In fact, all activities
> have inherent risks at relative levels. Cooking is risky ; I have spent
> a moment wondering about what activity has zero risk, and I can't.
> Wearing a helmet only suggests that the person doing so believes that
> some risks are reduced.
You over-simplify. Wearing a helmet suggests that the person doing so
/also/ believes that the level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is
unacceptable (otherwise, why would they wear one?). In fact, the level
of risk to an unhelmetted rider is generally lower than that to a
pedestrian, so logic dictates pedestrians should also wear a helmet when
walking. Do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, why not?
>> Hitting something at 25 mph is exceeding their design specification at
>> least an order of magnitude.
>
> Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
Ah. So you are suggesting that these companies, out of the goodness of
their heart and to the detriment of their shareholders, are vastly
over-engineering their products over that necessary to pass the
certification standard? In fact they are attempting to meet the
certification standard with as little margin as possible to minimise
costs and, indeed, have successfully lobbied to /reduce/ that standard.
> And they're more aero than hair in the wind.
And the relavance of this is what?
R.
Michael Press
Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote:
When provided with a measure that reduces harmful effects
people will increase their exposure to hazard; people will
do this even when they know that risk-compensation is well
established. Nobody can say `I do not increase my exposure
to hazard when provided with protection.' Nobody believes
they risk-compensate.
--
Michael Press
Erik Sandblom
ric...@nomail.percival.nothanks.demon.novalid.co.address.uk den 06-05-08
18.17:
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> Similar lie : that those who would wear a helmet are saying bicycling is
>> dangerous. No, wearers are not saying that. In fact, all activities
>> have inherent risks at relative levels. Cooking is risky ; I have spent
>> a moment wondering about what activity has zero risk, and I can't.
>> Wearing a helmet only suggests that the person doing so believes that
>> some risks are reduced. Only a real bozo believes it makes him/her
>> immortal. Not total reduction of all risks, but some reduction of
>> related risks. Wearing a helmet does nothing to help the shredding of
>> your shorts while you slide on asphalt. That's another risk, and some
>> folks figure, perhaps, that it's one that is not worth complicating with
>> kevlar body armor. Scars are so cool to compare, later in cycling life.
>
> You over-simplify. Wearing a helmet suggests
Suggests to whom? Doing anything might suggest all kinds of garbage to
someone who is a real bozo, just like Sandy says. Women not wearing a head
covering might suggest to a fundamentalist that your society is declaring a
holy war against their religion. Are you going to get after women not
wearing a head covering because it might suggest something to a violent
fundamentalist?
Okay, so a government said they would make helmets compulsory when a certain
share of riders use them. Well it's sometimes said that you get the
government you deserve.
> that the person doing so
> /also/ believes that the level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is
> unacceptable (otherwise, why would they wear one?).
To keep their hair flat. To keep warm. Not all helmets are uncomfortable and
wrongly fitted.
snip
>> And they're more aero than hair in the wind.
>
> And the relavance of this is what?
The relevance is that someone would wear a helmet in order to keep their
hair flat and be more aerodynamic.
Michael Press
Paul Cassel <pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
> >
> > Not necessarily. Risk compensation is not a conscious choice.
> >
>
>
> Richard, David and others who are arguing risk compensation, I don't
> think this an issue with me personally. I have been riding motorcycles
> since I was 17, have more miles on them than cars / trucks and have
> never been down on the road. I moved from no helmet to a half to now a
> full over the years with no increase in crash occurrences (always zero).
One of the established facts of risk compensation research
is that everybody thinks that he does not do it. You do
not believe you do it, but you do. Everybody does it, all
the time.
--
Michael Press
Sandy
> Sandy wrote:
>
>>> Fair enough - you were in a situation where you are much more likely
>>> to crash. However, /in that particular situation/, do you think
>>> that a helmet was likely to be of benefit, given that they are
>>> designed to counter an impact equivalent roughly to falling sideways
>>> off a stationary bike?
>>
>>
>> That last bit is a bunch of crap. Helmets are NOT designed to be
>> effective for such a fall ;
>
> Go back and read again what I said. Note particularly that I didn't
> say that they are designed to be effective for such a fall; I said
> that they were designed to counter an impact *equivalent roughly* to
> falling sideways.
You still don't get it. Having fallen in the first race of the season,
having used the helmet, I can assure you that as it skidded and bounced,
I am sure that parts of my face and scalp appreciated the layer of
foam. The helmet did A job ; not saving me from instant mortality, but
from enough annoyance, while leaving me with a bruise of minor degree.
I race with a helmet 'cause it's required ; I ride in groups with a
helmet, 'cause we ride close and fast ; and I never use one otherwise,
'cause I don't think I'll win against a car.
>> different, as are most of the lies of AHZ's. Helmets, I'll wager,
>> are designed to minimize the level of injury to the head at all
>> speeds and angles when they may be called into use.
>
> You'll wager? I have the design specs of the helmets here. I also
> have a video of a Japanese gentleman doing a measured 100 mph down the
> side of a volcano, when his headset fell off. Are you seriously
> telling me that in those design specs, there is a section marked
> "minimizing level of injury to riders in 100 mph impacts travelling
> down 45 degree scree slopes"? So what will you wager? If, in fact,
> you bother to read the design specs, you'll see that they do nothing
> of the kind.
>
So, enlightened one, share.
>> Similar lie : that those who would wear a helmet are saying bicycling
>> is dangerous. No, wearers are not saying that. In fact, all
>> activities have inherent risks at relative levels. Cooking is risky
>> ; I have spent a moment wondering about what activity has zero risk,
>> and I can't. Wearing a helmet only suggests that the person doing so
>> believes that some risks are reduced.
>
> You over-simplify. Wearing a helmet suggests that the person doing
> so /also/ believes that the level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is
> unacceptable (otherwise, why would they wear one?). In fact, the
> level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is generally lower than that to
> a pedestrian, so logic dictates pedestrians should also wear a helmet
> when walking. Do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, why not?
>
You are reading minds, mostly your own. When levels of risk rise,
precautions taken grow. Or mom didn't transmit common sense ?
>>> Hitting something at 25 mph is exceeding their design specification
>>> at least an order of magnitude.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
>
> Ah. So you are suggesting that these companies, out of the goodness
> of their heart and to the detriment of their shareholders, are vastly
> over-engineering their products over that necessary to pass the
> certification standard? In fact they are attempting to meet the
> certification standard with as little margin as possible to minimise
> costs and, indeed, have successfully lobbied to /reduce/ that standard.
Master of exaggeration and prevarication, you simply don't know what
you're putatively writing about. And your irony is as lame as can be
imagined. The standard is unimportant, except to bureaucrats. Do you
wear a layer under your jersey ? Do you know why it's a good idea ?
Ask mom.
>> And they're more aero than hair in the wind.
>
> And the relavance of this is what?
>
Going fast on a bike. I can only suppose that you prefer a trainer.
--
Double banzai !! !!
Sandy
Ian Smith
> Richard a crit :
> > Paul Cassel wrote:
> >
> >> I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was*
> >> operating in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my
> >> daughter. I was in training and going as hard as I could during a
> >> sprint.
> >
> > Fair enough - you were in a situation where you are much more likely
> > to crash. However, /in that particular situation/, do you think that
> > a helmet was likely to be of benefit, given that they are designed to
> > counter an impact equivalent roughly to falling sideways off a
> > stationary bike?
>
> That last bit is a bunch of crap. Helmets are NOT designed to be
> effective for such a fall ; rather, they gain certification depending on
> their performances to a specified standard in such a fall.
I see. You're claiming the manufacturers design the helmet to meet a
condition other than the conditions to which it is certified. Do you
really believe that?
If you do believe that, can you explain why helmet manufacturers
campaign for weaker helmet standards? Surely if they're designing for
cases more onerous for the certification requirements, they couldn't
care what the certification standards are?
> > Hitting something at 25 mph is exceeding their design specification at
> > least an order of magnitude.
>
> Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
You really do believe that manufacturers design to meet several times
the certification standard?
In what other fields of commercial manufacturing do you believe
manufactures say to themselves 'shall we provide good enough to meet
the requirements, or shall we make it three times better than required
and make a big loss on every unit?'
Sorni
> "Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:sggu525tfjru7a3d0...@4ax.com...
>
>> So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
>> original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
> I think I answered that one.
Where? When? Who are you?
> Nobody's disputed it yet - the one reply
> so far said I was understating one of the problems I mentioned.
What are you talking about?
Mark McNeill
> Suggests to whom?
Suggests to that reasonable person, The Man In The Street, I'd suggest.
It's common usage, after all.
> Doing anything might suggest all kinds of garbage to
> someone who is a real bozo, just like Sandy says. Women not wearing a head
> covering might suggest to a fundamentalist that your society is declaring a
> holy war against their religion. Are you going to get after women not
> wearing a head covering because it might suggest something to a violent
> fundamentalist?
If you admit into the argument what interpretation wackos might place on
what you do, you'll get nowhere fast. A nut-job might interpret my
Appalachian Ski Mountain baseball cap as a sign that I am blessed in the
sight of the Lord above all others; I don't let that possibility weigh
heavily on my choice of headgear.
On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that a reasonable person
might reasonably infer from the fact that you're wearing safety gear
than what you're doing is less safe than a mundane activity like
walking; even though per mile travelled, cycling is less dangerous than
walking. Is that really such a difficult point to comprehend?
--
Mark, UK
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Richard
>> You over-simplify. Wearing a helmet suggests that the person doing
>> so /also/ believes that the level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is
>> unacceptable (otherwise, why would they wear one?). In fact, the
>> level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is generally lower than that to
>> a pedestrian, so logic dictates pedestrians should also wear a helmet
>> when walking. Do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, why not?
>>
> You are reading minds, mostly your own.
Not at all, merely applying logic. Of course it all falls apart when
someone does something illogical.
> When levels of risk rise,
> precautions taken grow.
Indeed. And when walking, the level of risk is greater than when riding
a bicycle. So, I ask again - do you wear a helmet when walking? If
not, why not?
>>> Bullshit. It's the certification standard, not design specification.
>>
>>
>> Ah. So you are suggesting that these companies, out of the goodness
>> of their heart and to the detriment of their shareholders, are vastly
>> over-engineering their products over that necessary to pass the
>> certification standard? In fact they are attempting to meet the
>> certification standard with as little margin as possible to minimise
>> costs and, indeed, have successfully lobbied to /reduce/ that standard.
>
> Master of exaggeration and prevarication, you simply don't know what
> you're putatively writing about. And your irony is as lame as can be
> imagined. The standard is unimportant, except to bureaucrats.
Aside from the ad hominem attack, what point are you trying to make?
That the helmet manufacturers completely ignore the certification
standard as it's 'unimportant' and just design helmets on a whim?
>>> And they're more aero than hair in the wind.
>>
>> And the relavance of this is what?
>>
> Going fast on a bike.
If you want to go faster on a bike, by all means wear an aero helmet; it
may make you faster. Just don't kid yourself that it will make you
any safer in anything other than a very limited set of circumstances.
R.
Richard
>>/also/ believes that the level of risk to an unhelmetted rider is
>>unacceptable (otherwise, why would they wear one?).
>
> To keep their hair flat. To keep warm.
If I wanted to keep my hair flat or wanted to keep warm, I'd choose the
appropriate tool for the job, which would be a hat. Using a helmet to
keep my hair flat or to keep warm is like using a mole wrench to shift a
stubbon bolt; it may do the job, but you'll run a higher risk of getting
hurt.
> The relevance is that someone would wear a helmet in order to keep their
> hair flat and be more aerodynamic.
By all means wear a helmet if those are your goals. Just don't kid
yourself that it'll protect you significantly in a spill.
Anyway, the wardrobe of time trialists, both practical and safetywise,
are, generally, an irrelevance to what the majority of cyclists wear.
I see pictures of Michael Schumacher and all his personal protective
equipment when he races F1 cars, but I don't think it's necessary to
wear a Nomex suit and personal oxygen supply when I climb in my Ford
Escort.
R.
Erik Sandblom
på markonne...@yahoo.co.uk den 06-05-08 19.50:
> On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that a reasonable person
> might reasonably infer from the fact that you're wearing safety gear
> than what you're doing is less safe
Using safety equipment does not mean the activity is unsafe. It just means
that the risks are being reduced. That's all. Reducing risk does not have to
mean the risks were high to begin with.
carl...@comcast.net
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Looking at my clothes, I'm amazed at the damage. For example, my heavy
>duty gloves are all but gone. Well, lesson learned and I guess all
>people who ride need to take that spill sometime. I've been riding a
>year now; my time was ripe.
>
>-paul
Dear Paul,
Speaking of ripe . . .
LONDON/WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Rolling Stones guitarist Keith
Richards had surgery in New Zealand on Monday to relieve
headaches after a fall while holidaying in Fiji, his London
publicists said.
[Richards, 62, fell out of coconut tree that he was
climbing, possibly in pursuit of ripe coconuts.]
"The operation was a complete success and Keith is already
up and talking with his family today," the publicists said
in a statement about the surgery at the Ascot Hospital in
Auckland.
The publicists would not comment on a report in the New
Zealand Herald that the surgery was to relieve a subdural
haematoma or blood clot on the brain. The operation normally
involves drilling a hole through the skull to drain the
clot. . . .
Last week a spokeswoman for the band said Richards had only
suffered mild concussion and would not require surgery. The
Ascot Hospital told Reuters on Monday that Richards had been
discharged but would give no further details. . . .
In 1998, he broke three ribs and punctured a lung falling
from a ladder while reaching for a book in his library.
Number of rock stars needing brain surgery after falling out
of trees: 1
Number of rock stars with severe chest injuries after
falling off library ladders: 1
Number of rock stars seriously injured while bicycling: ?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Clive George
news:N6L7g.14415$MP2....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>> news:sggu525tfjru7a3d0...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> So now that that straw man is out of the way, let's get back to the
>>> original question... what's the down side to his wearing one?
>
>> I think I answered that one.
>
> Where? When? Who are you?
Here in this very thread. (Haven't you been reading it properly?) Yesterday.
I'm who I say I am.
>> Nobody's disputed it yet - the one reply
>> so far said I was understating one of the problems I mentioned.
>
> What are you talking about?
Go and read my other posts in this thread. They should still be available in
your news server - alternatively Google groups has them.
clive
frkr...@gmail.com
Erik Sandblom wrote:
> i artikel MPG.1ec995573...@news.nildram.co.uk, skrev Mark McNeill
> på markonne...@yahoo.co.uk den 06-05-08 19.50:
>
> > On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that a reasonable person
> > might reasonably infer from the fact that you're wearing safety gear
> > than what you're doing is less safe
>
>
> Using safety equipment does not mean the activity is unsafe. It just means
> that the risks are being reduced. That's all. Reducing risk does not have to
> mean the risks were high to begin with.
Um... right. That's why there's widely touted safety gear for
buttering toast, for painting watercolors, for reading Russian novels,
for napping...
- Frank Krygowski
Richard
> Using safety equipment does not mean the activity is unsafe. It just means
> that the risks are being reduced. That's all. Reducing risk does not have to
> mean the risks were high to begin with.
It suggests that the level of risk was deemed unacceptably high that the
"safety equipment" was deemed necessary to bring them to an acceptable
level (or else why would you wear it?) And therein is the problem - the
*actual* level of risk of "ordinary" cyclists are on a par with/below
that of pedestrians, but is perceived to be far higher (which is why
ordinary cyclists wear helmets, yet ordinary pedestrians do not). And
with that perception, comes the wearing of safety gear that is not only
unneccessary (that, I wouldn't have much of a problem with), but
actually *exacerbates* the risk both to the helmet wearer *and* the
non-wearer.
R.
Mark McNeill
>
> > On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me that a reasonable person
> > might reasonably infer from the fact that you're wearing safety gear
> > than what you're doing is less safe
>
>
> Using safety equipment does not mean the activity is unsafe.
<Bangs head briefly against wall [1]> The point we were talking about
was not about cycling being intrinsically safe; from what you said a
week or two ago, we can probably agree that cycling *is* safe.
The point *was* about how cycling is perceived, particularly by the
average person who, we can agree, probably doesn't know much about
cycling, or about proper assessment of risk. Now: if such a person saw
a cyclist wearing a helmet, would the helmet be more or less likely to
make this person think that cycling is intrinsically more dangerous
than, say, walking? More likely? - less likely? - about the same? What
do you think?
You are quite right that using safety equipment doesn't mean the
activity is unsafe; but it might, just possibly, to the average
observer, *imply* it, mightn't it?
> It just means that the risks are being reduced. That's all.
But according to the available evidence, there's no telling whether the
risks are being reduced or not. That *is* rather the point of these
helmet threads, to the extent that helmet threads have any point at all.
> Reducing risk does not have to mean the risks were high to begin with.
No, you're quite right. As we were saying in the last discussion you
took part in on u.r.c., there is a risk of head injury when lying in
bed; and it's up to you whether to reduce that risk further. It's the
same for walking, jogging, cycling, swimming, and avoiding meteorites.
A cycle helmet *will* provide *some* protection during all of these
activities; although of course it may have a downside as well.
[1] Insert obligatory self-referential gag about helmet-wearing here ;-þ
--
Mark, UK
"What arouses the indignation of the honest satirist is not, unless the
man is a prig, the fact that people in positions of power or influence
behave idiotically, or even that they behave wickedly. It is that they
conspire successfully to impose upon the public a picture of themselves
as so very sagacious, honest and well-intentioned."
Erik Sandblom
ric...@nowhere.invalid den 06-05-08 20.30:
> Just don't kid
> yourself that it'll protect you significantly in a spill.
Richard, you have to accept that 1. other people have other points of view
and 2. they are entitled to them. You can't say to people "don't think this,
don't think this". I think what I please.
Erik Sandblom
ric...@nowhere.invalid den 06-05-08 21.04:
> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>
>> Using safety equipment does not mean the activity is unsafe. It just means
>> that the risks are being reduced. That's all. Reducing risk does not have to
>> mean the risks were high to begin with.
>
> It suggests that the level of risk was deemed unacceptably high
No, it means the risk could easily be reduced. It's not the same thing.