Olympic cyclist Annemiek Van Vleuten in intensive care after horrific crash

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:46:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/9/2016 2:08 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:41:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/8/2016 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2016 9:03 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


It's amazing that if something/anything is posted about an accident
wherein the rider was wearing a helmet the AHZ people come out with
they should have done this or that and not crashed.

It's amazing that people will scour the internet for helmeted crashes
and use them for trolling. But it's your hobby, isn't it, Sir?

Crikey, this lady is a bicyclist good enough and experienced enough to
race in the friggin Olympics!
That shows that the unexpected can happen even with experience and
skill. An amateur/casula rider out
for a ride can also encounter something totally unexpected that can
cause them to crash.
I think the only avoid every falling whilst on a bicycle is to simply
stop riding a bicycle.
I've seen the odd bicyclist fall over at an intersection where the
bicyclist was doing a track
stand and something caused the front wheel to slip a bit and wham down
they went.

And I'm sure their helmet saved them from death or worse, right?

Are people here saying that when bicycling there will NEVER be an
accident? If so, that's nearly inconceivable.

A) I've had two moving, on-road falls in well over 40 years of
enthusiastic adult cycling. Both were under 10 mph. Neither had any
serious injuries, and in the one for which I wore a helmet, it did nothing.

B) Your unspoken implication is that if someone does have any kind of
crash, they will need a helmet for protection. How can you forget the
100+ years of pre-styrofoam cycling, during which there was never a
plague of traumatic brain injury?

C) And again, why do you restrict your fear mongering to bicycling? It's
simply not a major risk for TBI.

Take a look at the 2008 Phillips Report on TBI in Ireland:
http://www.nai.ie/assets/15/015AB446...ips_Report.pdf


Look at Table 6.1 to see that ALL road users are just 22% of the
problem. Look at table 6.8 to see that cyclists are only 15% of that
22%. (I can help you with the math, if you need it.) Look at table 6.9
to see that pedestrians, motorcyclists and motorists tend to have much
more severe TBI than bicyclists.

And stop trying to make bicycling sound so damned dangerous!

P.S. If _your_ personal riding experience involves lots of high-impact
crashing, please do wear a helmet.

But more important, learn to ride better. It can be done!


Ah Frank, when I was a kid Father Murphy, down at Sacred Heart, used
to give all the young lads St. Christopher Medals. When I was in
Indonesia a friend had a decal sort of thing with a verse from the
Holy Koran glued on the dash of his car and when I came to Thailand my
brother in law gave me a Buddhist Amulet and told me that it would
protect me from being shot.

From memory none of the kids at Sacred Heart got hurt on their bikes,
my Indonesian friend didn't have a car wreck in the 20 years that I
was there and so far I've not been shot.

And, I might add, Lourdes, three years ago announced that they had
received an official declaration from the Bishop of Pavia, Italy
stating that the 69th miracle has taken place there.

I'm not sure that a helmet is required.


Were any of those tested in the final turn before the
sprint, elbows-on with a guy riding for Team Cthulu?

Well, when the Bishop comes by with the water sprinkler and the
"Dominus tecum benedicta", I never heard anyone ask it this was going
to last until the finish line :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/9/2016 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 3:17:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2016 2:21 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 08/08/2016 10:26 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 8:09:15 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr3v1SWg5cw

Helmets don't help?

I knew this was coming! I would certainly want a helmet in that situation, which involved a combination of really bad circumstances -- high-siding into a curb and doing a head-stand. Whether the helmet actually mitigated any injury is a conclusion that I would have to leave to the biomechanical experts. Looking at the head-strike, and in light of her long hair, it is highly likely to have mitigated scalp injury.

Apart from the helmet issue, the take-away might be to get your weight back and take a wider line. I would have gone to the far left and then cut the apex of that turn. She was hugging the far right and ran right into the apex, locked her rear wheel and high-sided. At least if one takes a wider line and wipes out, it's a pretty tame low-side crash -- except for the curb, which was the really killer.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yeah I would take anything that would help in that case.

What was up with those "rut" things along the left side of the road? It
looked to me that her wheel caught that.

Check this:
http://gizmodo.com/the-science-behin...zed-1784950831

A male racer broke both collar bones there before this race.

On that gizmodo.com link, I think the best follow-up comment was this one:


"watch the video again, her rear drifted out BEFORE the paint. It was over application of the breaks, and then a panic reaction to the drift to try to buck forward on the front w/ breaks which went too far and locked the front. If anything, the front tire stopped/turned on the paint more aggressively than she expected, causing the rear to break free.
Often that “paint� is really a lot of reflective grit, which when dry is like worn sandpaper- which will grab.

It would be nice to see some crash barriers other than a high curb on the outside of the descent turns, especially decreasing radius like this one."


If I had been racing that course, I would have been in the left lane at the beginning of the clip, taking the hard right from the top of the turn. She was going too fast for that tight inside line, braked, lost rear wheel traction, over-compensated with her front brake and high-sided. As noted by others, the dangerous part of that course was the "road furniture" -- the curb. The road itself looks well paved and it even appears to be banked in the right direction, although it kind of breaks lane-center. It's a tight turn, but the world is filled with steep, tight turns. The European racers see them all the time.

For those interested, here's the relevant Google Street View. The
corner in question is just ahead:
https://goo.gl/maps/wrL5mqbVakq

Monday Morning Quarterbacking is easy, of course.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Looking at that video many times I still cannot understand some things. The road was wet and she had rim brakes it looks like. How the hell did he get enough traction and strong enough brakes to do an endo BEFORE she hit the curb?

Good question. The rain seemed to have just begun, judging from the
live broadcast I watched. I wonder if the tree canopy kept the edge of
the road dry?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Yo, Dumbo, you should learn to discover the local realities before you trumpet a mickey mouse study with numbers too small to be statistically significant as the end-all and be-all for your case, whatever it may be this week. For instance, a recent study put the modal share of cycling where I live, 22 miles from Cork City, in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, at 0.4% (that's zero point four per cent). Nobody was surprised, because everyone who isn't an idiot like you, Frank Krygowski, already knows that cycling is mostly city-based in Ireland.

You can weasel all you like, Franki-boy, and descend to your typical tactic of calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a coward and a liar, but the facts stand as I laid them out. ***Cyclists in Ireland in 2008 were more than four times (15/3.5) as likely to suffer traumatic brain injury (TBI) than other road users.*** That's what those numbers tell us that you brought to us like a puppydog with a bone — and as little understanding of what makes the numbers tick as the puppydog has of the chemistry of the bone.

That's why the staff at UCH (one of the hospitals referred to in the study you like so much) refer to cyclists visible on the busy road below the hospital as "self-delivering organ donors". (The dimmer these would-be statistical analysts are, the less likely they are to grasp the importance of local knowledge.)

As for the implications for helmets, the numbers also speak for themselves when they tell us that 81% of cyclists who suffer TBI had no other (serious) injury: the numbers tell us that head protection is important for cyclists.

If you are too stupid or ideologically committed to see that these are the facts within the levels of confidence of those Philips numbers, there is nothing more I can do to help you, Franki-boy. You're too much of a loser to be worth even this much of my time, which is better spent straightening out wrongoes that someone is actually likely to listen to.

Andre Jute
I remember when Frank Krygowski overstated how dangerous cycling is in the US and I had to show him how to analyze the numbers to demonstrate instead how safe cycling is in the US. You'd think the useless little man would be at least a little grateful.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:57:26 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2016 6:41 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Franki-boy, you're either wanking incompetently, or deliberately trying to mislead us. Here are some facts:

In 2008, when that report by which you set so much store (1) was written, modal share of cycling in Irish cities was about 3.5% (2). Yet cyclists made up 15% of traumatic brain injury suffered by road users (1). Cyclists were therefore disproportionately likely to suffer traumatic brain injury.

Cycling 3.5% modal share. Cyclists with TBI 15% of road users with TBI.

According to your link, that mode share refers to the percentage of
people traveling to work or school. But as the Phillips report says:
"Motor vehicle and motorbike collisions usually occurred while commuting
(95% and 87% respectively). The circumstance surrounding pedal cyclist
and pedestrian injuries was frequently described as other, unknown and
recreation."

In other words, you're making the elementary mistake (or, more likely in
your case, deliberate deception) of combining data for different
populations yet pretending they are one and the same. By your logic, a
mountain biker who fails to jump a log and gets a mild concussion is
counted against a person using Dublin's bike share to potter to work.

Conclusion: Cycling in Ireland is dangerous.

Does it make you feel more manly to say that, you hero, you?

Furthermore, cyclists suffered head injuries disproportionately. "Pedal cyclists were the most likely road user to have an isolated head injury (81%)." (1)

Such dishonesty!

Again, the point of their work "isolated" was that the treated cyclists
had far fewer "other" injuries. Other road users suffered far more
injuries in _addition_ to their TBI (like broken "long bones," broken
pelvises, major chest, abdominal and spinal injuries). That's in table
6.11.

In effect, they're saying the cyclists were _less_ injured. That's in
addition to cyclists averaging far less severe TBI (as shown in table 6.9).

That is evidence, depending on how many of the injured wore helmets, either for improving currently available helmets, or for wearing the available helmets.

They give the counts for helmets; but they say, regrading helmet use,
"no statistical difference [in] injury severity was proven for either
pedal or motorcyclists."

I suppose a dedicated "bicycling is dangerous" troll would say "Since
there was no statistical difference in favor of helmets, we MUST have
much better helmets!!!"

So I urge you to devote your personal time to producing some. If you
can produce and sell bike helmets that will have definite beneficial
effects on the bicycling fatality rates or the bicyclist concussion
counts, that would be an improvement over the current ineffective bike
helmet technology. Then those fooled by your "Danger! Danger!"
propaganda wouldn't be wasting their money on the current styrofoam scams..


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2016 12:27 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The point I tried to make is that even if a person has bicycled for years sometimes a crash will happen to them because of road debris or some other unforseen thing. That's why they're called accidents.

... for some small value of "sometimes." Bike crashes are NOT
inevitable, and almost all bike crashes cause nothing more than road
rash, which is usually very minor. Yes, if you ensconce your head in an
oversized bowl of styrofoam, you're more likely to find it scratched and
claimed it saved your life; but again, TBI has _never_ been a serious
risk from bicycling. It's more of a hazard for pedestrians.

And regarding "road debris or some other unforseen [sic] thing": You'd
do a lot more good by reminding people to watch the road surface, than
by constantly haranguing about headgear.

Come off it Frank. The guy already told you.

Some bloke, doing a track stand at a stop light falls over. It's an
"Accident". A guy, out on his Sunday Ride, going down hill at 55 kph,
isn't watching the road, hits a sandy patch, CRASH. That is an
"Accident". He didn't mention it but I'm sure that the bicycle
debating the right of way with the 22 wheel truck doing 90 kph will be
another "Accident".

I suspect Andrew could, if his memory is still serviceable, probably
tell us tales about people who had an accident on the way home from
buying the new bike.

In short these two wheeled things are the Devil's
own devices and should be banned!

However, I've been doing a little research on these "accidents" and i
an seeing implications of certain things. Firstly, some studies are
showing that a large percentage of bicycle "accidents" are actually
the fault of the cyclist. One can only speculate whether shooting
oneself in the foot (so to speak) is really an accident, and Secondly,
there seems to be an indication that bicycle accidents occur mostly to
the younger males and decrease as the cyclist grown older.

This does require more study but it might be that with age and
experience comes knowledge, or it might be that age and craftiness
overcomes youth and inexperience.

Only more study will tell.


All I'm doing by posting these events is showing people that crap can happen when you least expect it.

You are trolling. You want to start helmet wars.

Sometimes a helmet on your head helps mitigate the severity of any
injuries.

I suspect that's true of walking, running, jogging, motoring, descending
stairs, climbing ladders and many other activities. If you were really
worried about injuries in general, you'd do some digging to learn the
amount of TBI caused by those activities; but you won't, because your
real motivation is to make only bicycling sound dangerous.

In closing, From the Mayo Clinic report on Traumatic Brain Damage,
Paragraph Causes:

"Events causing traumatic brain injury include the following:

Falls. Falling out of bed, slipping in the bath, falling down steps,
falling from ladders and related falls are the most common cause of
traumatic brain injury overall..."


--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/9/2016 6:00 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 20:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr3v1SWg5cw

Helmets don't help?

Cheers

Do we get to do clips of horrific accidents to try to prove our point
now? Very classy! I am sure that knowing they are helping to settle
the argument of a handful of people on Usenet will provide much
consolation for their pain and suffering.

Here's Mario Cipollini doing a major header at the business end of a
sprint (wacking his head at least twice) with no helmet. Maybe he had
enough hair gel to protect him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Y_KOwa5pA

Shouldn't he be dead, disabled or least drooling a lot in the helmeteer
world view? 'Cuz he landed on his head at close to 40 MPH without a
helmet. Isn't that guarantee of death or disability? Or was it the
hair gel?

Helmets might help sometimes. They might not help sometimes. The
evidence just doesn't show a noticeable protective benefit. Videos like
the one of van Vleuten or the one of Cipo aren't going to resolve the
issue. I'm frankly rather annoyed with the play to emotion, Sir, and
what seems like a rather rude exploitation of misfortune to try to score
a point- hence my rather caustic reaction.

In the meantime, I hope that van Vleuten recovers well. She is being
released from the hospital with a concussion and three small fractures
in her spine. Best wishes!


Well there you go again, looking at the actual world in
which we ride. Not enough fanciful theory for a Usenet post.


“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual
could believe them.�

― George Orwell

We all know riders who died with helmet on and others who
'rang their bell' without and walked away. For every rider
who decides, "Might help, couldn't hurt" there's another who
asks, "Why bother?"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/9/2016 8:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2016 12:27 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The point I tried to make is that even if a person has bicycled for years sometimes a crash will happen to them because of road debris or some other unforseen thing. That's why they're called accidents.

... for some small value of "sometimes." Bike crashes are NOT
inevitable, and almost all bike crashes cause nothing more than road
rash, which is usually very minor. Yes, if you ensconce your head in an
oversized bowl of styrofoam, you're more likely to find it scratched and
claimed it saved your life; but again, TBI has _never_ been a serious
risk from bicycling. It's more of a hazard for pedestrians.

And regarding "road debris or some other unforseen [sic] thing": You'd
do a lot more good by reminding people to watch the road surface, than
by constantly haranguing about headgear.

Come off it Frank. The guy already told you.

Some bloke, doing a track stand at a stop light falls over. It's an
"Accident". A guy, out on his Sunday Ride, going down hill at 55 kph,
isn't watching the road, hits a sandy patch, CRASH. That is an
"Accident". He didn't mention it but I'm sure that the bicycle
debating the right of way with the 22 wheel truck doing 90 kph will be
another "Accident".

I suspect Andrew could, if his memory is still serviceable, probably
tell us tales about people who had an accident on the way home from
buying the new bike.

In short these two wheeled things are the Devil's
own devices and should be banned!

However, I've been doing a little research on these "accidents" and i
an seeing implications of certain things. Firstly, some studies are
showing that a large percentage of bicycle "accidents" are actually
the fault of the cyclist. One can only speculate whether shooting
oneself in the foot (so to speak) is really an accident, and Secondly,
there seems to be an indication that bicycle accidents occur mostly to
the younger males and decrease as the cyclist grown older.

This does require more study but it might be that with age and
experience comes knowledge, or it might be that age and craftiness
overcomes youth and inexperience.

Only more study will tell.


All I'm doing by posting these events is showing people that crap can happen when you least expect it.

You are trolling. You want to start helmet wars.

Sometimes a helmet on your head helps mitigate the severity of any
injuries.

I suspect that's true of walking, running, jogging, motoring, descending
stairs, climbing ladders and many other activities. If you were really
worried about injuries in general, you'd do some digging to learn the
amount of TBI caused by those activities; but you won't, because your
real motivation is to make only bicycling sound dangerous.

In closing, From the Mayo Clinic report on Traumatic Brain Damage,
Paragraph Causes:

"Events causing traumatic brain injury include the following:

Falls. Falling out of bed, slipping in the bath, falling down steps,
falling from ladders and related falls are the most common cause of
traumatic brain injury overall..."


"I suspect Andrew could, if his memory is still serviceable, probably
tell us tales about people who had an accident on the way home from
buying the new bike."


Absolutely! The most notable of which was 100 feet to the
corner and then straight through a red light. He was lucky
to escape uninjured. We gave him another new bicycle.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Yo, Frank Krygowski, we're waiting for you to come explain how "cycling is safe in Ireland" when
a) cyclists make up about around 3.5% of road users
but
b) cyclists suffer 15% of road user TBI (traumatic brain injury)

Come on then, Franki-boy, let's hear your case. Alternatively, you can apologize to all of us for lying to us, and in particular to Sir Ridealot for trying to bully him on the basis of your lies. Or, of course, you can just run away with your tail between your legs, as you usually do, by pretending not to read the posts that devastate your junior school debating tricks.

Andre Jute
Standing up against the internet thugs

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:42:54 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
Yo, Dumbo, you should learn to discover the local realities before you trumpet a mickey mouse study with numbers too small to be statistically significant as the end-all and be-all for your case, whatever it may be this week. For instance, a recent study put the modal share of cycling where I live, 22 miles from Cork City, in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, at 0.4% (that's zero point four per cent). Nobody was surprised, because everyone who isn't an idiot like you, Frank Krygowski, already knows that cycling is mostly city-based in Ireland.

You can weasel all you like, Franki-boy, and descend to your typical tactic of calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a coward and a liar, but the facts stand as I laid them out. ***Cyclists in Ireland in 2008 were more than four times (15/3.5) as likely to suffer traumatic brain injury (TBI) than other road users.*** That's what those numbers tell us that you brought to us like a puppydog with a bone — and as little understanding of what makes the numbers tick as the puppydog has of the chemistry of the bone.

That's why the staff at UCH (one of the hospitals referred to in the study you like so much) refer to cyclists visible on the busy road below the hospital as "self-delivering organ donors". (The dimmer these would-be statistical analysts are, the less likely they are to grasp the importance of local knowledge.)

As for the implications for helmets, the numbers also speak for themselves when they tell us that 81% of cyclists who suffer TBI had no other (serious) injury: the numbers tell us that head protection is important for cyclists.

If you are too stupid or ideologically committed to see that these are the facts within the levels of confidence of those Philips numbers, there is nothing more I can do to help you, Franki-boy. You're too much of a loser to be worth even this much of my time, which is better spent straightening out wrongoes that someone is actually likely to listen to.

Andre Jute
I remember when Frank Krygowski overstated how dangerous cycling is in the US and I had to show him how to analyze the numbers to demonstrate instead how safe cycling is in the US. You'd think the useless little man would be at least a little grateful.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:57:26 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2016 6:41 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Franki-boy, you're either wanking incompetently, or deliberately trying to mislead us. Here are some facts:

In 2008, when that report by which you set so much store (1) was written, modal share of cycling in Irish cities was about 3.5% (2). Yet cyclists made up 15% of traumatic brain injury suffered by road users (1). Cyclists were therefore disproportionately likely to suffer traumatic brain injury..

Cycling 3.5% modal share. Cyclists with TBI 15% of road users with TBI.

According to your link, that mode share refers to the percentage of
people traveling to work or school. But as the Phillips report says:
"Motor vehicle and motorbike collisions usually occurred while commuting
(95% and 87% respectively). The circumstance surrounding pedal cyclist
and pedestrian injuries was frequently described as other, unknown and
recreation."

In other words, you're making the elementary mistake (or, more likely in
your case, deliberate deception) of combining data for different
populations yet pretending they are one and the same. By your logic, a
mountain biker who fails to jump a log and gets a mild concussion is
counted against a person using Dublin's bike share to potter to work.

Conclusion: Cycling in Ireland is dangerous.

Does it make you feel more manly to say that, you hero, you?

Furthermore, cyclists suffered head injuries disproportionately. "Pedal cyclists were the most likely road user to have an isolated head injury (81%)." (1)

Such dishonesty!

Again, the point of their work "isolated" was that the treated cyclists
had far fewer "other" injuries. Other road users suffered far more
injuries in _addition_ to their TBI (like broken "long bones," broken
pelvises, major chest, abdominal and spinal injuries). That's in table
6.11.

In effect, they're saying the cyclists were _less_ injured. That's in
addition to cyclists averaging far less severe TBI (as shown in table 6..9).

That is evidence, depending on how many of the injured wore helmets, either for improving currently available helmets, or for wearing the available helmets.

They give the counts for helmets; but they say, regrading helmet use,
"no statistical difference [in] injury severity was proven for either
pedal or motorcyclists."

I suppose a dedicated "bicycling is dangerous" troll would say "Since
there was no statistical difference in favor of helmets, we MUST have
much better helmets!!!"

So I urge you to devote your personal time to producing some. If you
can produce and sell bike helmets that will have definite beneficial
effects on the bicycling fatality rates or the bicyclist concussion
counts, that would be an improvement over the current ineffective bike
helmet technology. Then those fooled by your "Danger! Danger!"
propaganda wouldn't be wasting their money on the current styrofoam scams.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/10/2016 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Yo, Frank Krygowski, we're waiting for you to come explain how "cycling is safe in Ireland" when
a) cyclists make up about around 3.5% of road users
but
b) cyclists suffer 15% of road user TBI (traumatic brain injury)


That's been done. Sorry if you didn't follow. But if you want to
persist in yelling "Danger! Danger!" then have at it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:15:17 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/9/2016 8:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2016 12:27 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The point I tried to make is that even if a person has bicycled for years sometimes a crash will happen to them because of road debris or some other unforseen thing. That's why they're called accidents.

... for some small value of "sometimes." Bike crashes are NOT
inevitable, and almost all bike crashes cause nothing more than road
rash, which is usually very minor. Yes, if you ensconce your head in an
oversized bowl of styrofoam, you're more likely to find it scratched and
claimed it saved your life; but again, TBI has _never_ been a serious
risk from bicycling. It's more of a hazard for pedestrians.

And regarding "road debris or some other unforseen [sic] thing": You'd
do a lot more good by reminding people to watch the road surface, than
by constantly haranguing about headgear.

Come off it Frank. The guy already told you.

Some bloke, doing a track stand at a stop light falls over. It's an
"Accident". A guy, out on his Sunday Ride, going down hill at 55 kph,
isn't watching the road, hits a sandy patch, CRASH. That is an
"Accident". He didn't mention it but I'm sure that the bicycle
debating the right of way with the 22 wheel truck doing 90 kph will be
another "Accident".

I suspect Andrew could, if his memory is still serviceable, probably
tell us tales about people who had an accident on the way home from
buying the new bike.

In short these two wheeled things are the Devil's
own devices and should be banned!

However, I've been doing a little research on these "accidents" and i
an seeing implications of certain things. Firstly, some studies are
showing that a large percentage of bicycle "accidents" are actually
the fault of the cyclist. One can only speculate whether shooting
oneself in the foot (so to speak) is really an accident, and Secondly,
there seems to be an indication that bicycle accidents occur mostly to
the younger males and decrease as the cyclist grown older.

This does require more study but it might be that with age and
experience comes knowledge, or it might be that age and craftiness
overcomes youth and inexperience.

Only more study will tell.


All I'm doing by posting these events is showing people that crap can happen when you least expect it.

You are trolling. You want to start helmet wars.

Sometimes a helmet on your head helps mitigate the severity of any
injuries.

I suspect that's true of walking, running, jogging, motoring, descending
stairs, climbing ladders and many other activities. If you were really
worried about injuries in general, you'd do some digging to learn the
amount of TBI caused by those activities; but you won't, because your
real motivation is to make only bicycling sound dangerous.

In closing, From the Mayo Clinic report on Traumatic Brain Damage,
Paragraph Causes:

"Events causing traumatic brain injury include the following:

Falls. Falling out of bed, slipping in the bath, falling down steps,
falling from ladders and related falls are the most common cause of
traumatic brain injury overall..."


"I suspect Andrew could, if his memory is still serviceable, probably
tell us tales about people who had an accident on the way home from
buying the new bike."


Absolutely! The most notable of which was 100 feet to the
corner and then straight through a red light. He was lucky
to escape uninjured. We gave him another new bicycle.

Too bad that don't package "good sense" or you could have given him a
box of that with the new bike :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

LOL. Frank Krygowski can't explain why he lied that cycling in Ireland is "safe" when Irish cyclists are more than four times (15/3.5) as likely to contract traumatic brain injury (TBI) on the road than other Irish road users.. So, because I cut off Krygowski's usual mindless excuse that he didn't read the post in which he got bitch-slapped, he now perpetrates a prepubescent insult on our intelligence by claiming he already won the argument.

Franki-boy, after this pitiful performance, are you surprised, do you expect anyone to be surprised, when no one believes what you say? You're a pimple on reason, Krygowski.

Andre Jute
Let the numbers flow

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:06:18 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Yo, Frank Krygowski, we're waiting for you to come explain how "cycling is safe in Ireland" when
a) cyclists make up about around 3.5% of road users
but
b) cyclists suffer 15% of road user TBI (traumatic brain injury)


That's been done. Sorry if you didn't follow. But if you want to
persist in yelling "Danger! Danger!" then have at it.

--
- Frank Krygowski