I think a lot of people are missing the point on Jack Halpern's original
post. When we talk to the press about unicycling being "safe," it does
not mean safer than bicycling, cars, or the household bathtub. The point
is that unicycling is, in reality, a lot safer than it looks to the
non-rider. That's the part that is true (though relatively impossible to
measure). Unicycling is still on a par with bicycling, skateboarding,
and other activities where you move forward and can fall down.
But to the uninitiated, unicycling looks like something where you must
fall down constantly. The danger level appears to be much higher than we
know it to be. So we tell the press it's not that dangerous, and they
generally know what we mean by that.
But in my case, this information didn't usually make its way into a
finished story, because it didn't make unicycling seem more compelling,
or interesting. So though I still mention it, when I talk to the press
today I try to emphasize more the amazing and interesting things riders
can do.
---
Points on the backs of bike helmets are for looks, based on aerodynamic
track helmets worn in bike racing. They do not provide any aerodynamic
advantage, unless you're going faster than most recreational riders can
manage. The point increases the chance of a neck injury if you land in
certain ways.
---
Head injuries in bike (or motorcycle) crashes are sometimes not from the
original impact. the rider falls down and slides or rolls across the
ground, *then* makes contact with a stone curb or other immovable
object. Sometimes this is where the damage occurs. What it boils down to
is the force of impact. Doesn't matter in what direction that force was
applied, whether across or downward.
Graeme wrote:
*Well that's nice and prejudiced of you
You seem to be
ignoring the fact that there are no peer reviewed, whole population
studies which prove that a helmet is beneficial to a cyclist, but some
do show slight negative effects. *
For a guy who has specified he is pro-helmet and wears one, he seems to
have all the anti-helmet arguments I've heard in the bicycling and
motorcycling worlds.
The above statement talks about the fact that there have been occasions
of helmets *causing* injuries in crashes, which is a reality. Similar to
seatbelts causing problems in some car crashes, such as when the side of
the car is pushed way in and the passenger is attached to the seat
that's being crushed.
Though these incidents occur, you don't see a large backlash, by the
general populace or even the people who conducted the tests, saying that
seatbelts or helmets are doing more harm than good, because they aren't.
As Graeme has pointed out, it's real hard to say whether a person would
be killed or not if they had *not* been wearing their helmet in a given
accident. But most of us seem satisfied enough to know that their odds
of not being killed were greatly improved by having the helmet on.
Improved enough, if you ask me, to not question whether the helmet did
its job that day.
But these sorts of things can be debated forever (and already have), so
I'm glad Graeme and I are on the same side of the argument.
---
When should helmets be regulated? Graeme also pointed out about the
comparison of active people risking their "necks" vs. a non-active
population that's more likely to suffer from hear attacks and other
ailments. Very true. But this still doesn't work for me as a good reason
for me to chip in on the extremely high costs of life support for a
brain-damaged or braindead person who should have just worn a helmet
(thinking motorcycles here, where most of the US has a law).
---
We regulate helmets at unicycle sporting events for three major reasons,
listed in what I consider the order of precedence for the USA:
1. Liability. One bad lawsuit, and nobody will want to host one again.
2. Image. We want to be perceived as responsible. If kids are racing on
rocks at my event, they're going to have helmets on. This will look much
better (to me) in a newspaper article.
3. Safety. Someday, someone's going to need it.
It looks bad, having safety listed third. But remember, this is just the
question of whether to *require* helmets, not of whether or not to wear
one. That choice has always been there.
The USA and IUF currently require helmets for a few events, with the IUF
being less restrictive. Helmets are required for unlimited road races,
and downhill gliding. Trials, Fast Backward, and Trials. Because UNICONs
are held in various countries with different attitudes about helmets and
liability, it's not as specific. Were it up to me we would also require
helmets for all MUni events, high jump, and long jump.
For the rest of track unicycle racing, after years of debate, I am fine
with leaving it up to the rider.
--
johnfoss - On the Cutting Edge
John Foss
the Uni-Cyclone
jfoss [at] unicycling [.] com
www.unicycling.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile:
http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread:
http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/26351