Why are we wasting time on the death of one celebrity racing cyclist,
travelling at a speed most of us will never achieve, on roads only
Jobst and Lou have ever seen?

There is plenty of data about cyclists just like us to talk about:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

That looks to me like helmets saved 33 lives of cyclists like us
riding at speeds like ours on urban streets of a type familiar to most
of us.

Andre Jute
Eventually the message will register

On Sep 1, 5:58*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dan O considered Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:52:21
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Aug 31, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:46 pm, Dan O wrote:

I googled "Casartelli" looking for examples of the "nonsense claims"
you mention. *At Wikipedia I found:

"Many have claimed if Casartelli had been wearing a modern bicycle
helmet his life might have been saved."

Which is nonsense. *The collision was at a speed no bike helmet could
handle. *Surely you don't think these things are good for 45mph into
solid concrete, do you??

My dictionary says the word "might" is "used to indicate a possibility
or probability that is weaker than may: *We might discover a pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow"

What do you mean "handle", anyway? *All we know is that hitting his
head without a helmet killed him. *It is entirely possible that a
helmet could have attenuated and/or deflected and/or otherwise altered
the forces enough to change the outcome. *A longshot? *Probably -
*almost* certainly - but still possible.

Only if you seriously believe that helmets have some kind of magic
fairy dust used in their manufacture.



... and:

"Disteldorf added that had Casartelli been wearing a hard helmet 'some
injuries could have been avoided'."

"Some injuries"? *I don't doubt the truth of that, but I very much
doubt its practicality. *No matter what minor injuries it may have
prevented, it would certainly not prevent his death.

"Minor injuries"? *Where did you get that?

The only injuries that a cycle helmet could have prevented or
mitigated in that kind of incident would be the minor ones, not the
ones which killed him.







"Certainly"? *Others are saying "might" and could". *You are the only
one saying "would".

The next hit,http://www.bhsi.org/timesart.htm, *offered:

"Fabio Casartelli may not have died if he had been wearing a helmet."

I know this kind of stuff makes *you* see red, but "nonsense"? *I'm
not finding anyone saying "a certified-for-14-mph helmet would have
saved him".

Can you please cite some of the "nonsense claims" to which you refer?

Dan, there's no need for me to cite those nonsense claims. *You've
just done that.

You said, "There were - and still are - claims that a certified-for-14-
mph helmet would have saved him."

Cite, please, or retract.

What else would a "modern bicycle helmet" be but one certified to
modern standards?

Because of your faith, you don't recognize the nonsense - but it's
still nonsense. *In a direct hit between a concrete pillar and a
person's head at over 45 mph, a certified-for-14-mph helmet is simply
not going to make a difference! *Anybody believing it will is either a
helmet fundamentalist, or a dishonest helmet promoter. *Or both.

Talk about a fundamentalist.

There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy.
I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else
to share in their fantasies.