|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Even on this group, we've had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor injuries. But they never ride without it. . . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection. You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however you like. Ditto the gloves. But two points: First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago. It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head. Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth (lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's forks suddenly snapped off. I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel protected by a helmet? Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is _every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed? I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said "Where's your helmet??" This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't help but dissuade a lot of bike use. Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair. -- Jay Beattie. Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s). Lou +1 |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Even on this group, we've had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor injuries. But they never ride without it. . . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do.. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection. You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however you like. Ditto the gloves. But two points: First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.. It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head. Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth (lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's forks suddenly snapped off. I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel protected by a helmet? Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is _every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed? I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said "Where's your helmet??" This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't help but dissuade a lot of bike use. Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair. -- Jay Beattie. Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s). Lou A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident. Cheers I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that: - he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation, - he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book, - wearing a helmet didn't make a difference, - wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering. And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want. Lou |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On 1/20/2020 6:36 AM, Duane wrote:
snip I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that: - he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation, - he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book, - wearing a helmet didn't make a difference, - wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering. And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want. Lou +1 You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with no clue of the circumstances. I'm with Jay and Andre.Â* I wear a helmet because road rash on my head hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size. I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions.Â* Hell football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets. Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it. A lot of the nonsensical posts from Frank, and other AHZs, stem from their mindset of "everyone should do the same thing I do, and everyone should use the same equipment that I uses, and if they don't it's essentially saying that what I'm doing is wrong." There's never any facts or data to back up their assertions. No one would think any worse of him if he simply stated, "I choose not to wear a helmet and I accept the small added risk of not wearing a helmet." Ditto for lights. All he has to say is "I choose not to use good lights and I accept the added risk." No need for the silly stories of people randomly stopping him on the street to praise his lights. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
news18 writes:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:44:42 -0800, sms wrote: On 1/16/2020 9:05 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789 She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet. Very sad. I know that the helmet instructions warn parents to not have the child wear the helmet when not riding. This needs to be explained to children that are on their own riding their bikes. The helmet comes off when they get off the bike. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute warns about this as well https://helmets.org/playgrou.htm. Shrug, how much nanny state and helicopter parenting do you want. If you want the kids to wear helmets, then you let them wear a helmet when they want to. The whole problem is greatly exaggerated, especially by click bait media with the shlock horror reports of iindividual kids dieing. the risk of strangulation by bicycle helmet is a minor minor chance in their life, especially when we repeately see kids dieing from incompetent/gross overworked medical professionals working in corruptly run medical facilities. Locally we loose more kids from undiagnosed diseases each year than we do from helmet strangulation in a decade. Actually, I don't think we've ever had one. Helmet strangulation vs medical misadventure seems an apples to cue balls comparison. More relevant is the comparison of four year olds saved by bike helmets versus four year olds killed by them. Perhaps bike helmets for four year olds are not a net benefit. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:51:13 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:36 AM, Duane wrote: snip I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that: - he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation, - he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book, - wearing a helmet didn't make a difference, - wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering. And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want. Lou +1 You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with no clue of the circumstances. I'm with Jay and Andre.Â* I wear a helmet because road rash on my head hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size. I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions.Â* Hell football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets. Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it. A lot of the nonsensical posts from Frank, and other AHZs, stem from their mindset of "everyone should do the same thing I do, and everyone should use the same equipment that I uses, and if they don't it's essentially saying that what I'm doing is wrong." There's never any facts or data to back up their assertions. No one would think any worse of him if he simply stated, "I choose not to wear a helmet and I accept the small added risk of not wearing a helmet." Ditto for lights. All he has to say is "I choose not to use good lights and I accept the added risk." No need for the silly stories of people randomly stopping him on the street to praise his lights. Personally I agree with Frank that helmets should not made mandatory. There is no chance that this will happen here in the Netherlands although neurologists are in favor of wearing one. I take their knowledge about the effectiveness of helmets not serious. I think it is also true that in case of a bicycle accidents the first question is if the cyclist was wearing a helmet. That is silly. This was also mentioned in the testimony of the woman who caused my crash. It was not a valid legal argument and she was declared guilty and had to pay compensation for the damage and suffering. So as long as helmet wear is not made mandatory I see no point in getting so upset as Frank does. Lou |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:51:25 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote: with Jeff Liebermann wrote: So, what is an RBT reading geek to do? If helmets are not going to disappear, and many people seem to want helmets, then at least make them better, more functional, more usable, cheaper, and in this case, less dangerous to small children. Minor tweaks to the design of a chin strap are not going to affect global use and sales of helmets, but it might save the lives of a few kids. No way. Changes as such would draw on profits. I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate. I don't have time to go through the details right now, but at some point, a mature product (same as an over-sold product), ossifies into a standard configuration, where all the competing products appear to be 99% identical. You may have noticed this in Linux distros, which are 99% identical, except for the installer, desktop decorations, and bundled applications. In bicycle helmet design, helmets look very much alike due to standards compliance requirements: https://helmets.org/standard.htm So, what is a manufacturer of bicycle helmets to do? They certainly don't want to compete on the basis of lowest price, as the spiral to the bottom is death to all involved. They could diversify into adjacent markets (motorcycle, racing, pedestrian, climbing, skateboard, etc helmets), but that requires investment money, and most of those markets are already saturated. They could concentrate on a niche market (folding helmets, inflatable helmets, cult helmets, etc), but those markets are probably not large enough to support the stockholders greedy aspirations. Doing nothing is an option, but that tends to get the company management replaced with more "dynamic" management. So, what is left for a bicycle helmet company to do? Well, they can divert R&D money into political lobbying or perception advertising in the hope of making their products mandatory. They can push for declaring their products defunct or unsafe after every collision, thus creating a replacement market. They could throw money at FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) advertising and create a permanent state of paranoia. All these have been tried, and seem to be an industry wide marketing standard. Notice that none of these sales improvement plans involve improving the market. That's self-defeating because the new and improved version of the old product immediately kill sales of the older products. Competing with oneself is a really bad idea. Yet, such minor tweaks to the product are essential to selling any product because they provide a way for buyers to differentiate the various available products. Some companies specialize in a radical or individualized helmet paint job turning the helmet into a potential billboard: https://nutcasehelmets.com Some give the helmet an aerodynamic look, or follow various fashion trends. Under the glitz, they're basically the same helmet. Anyway, tweaking and improving the design of the chin strap and locking mechanism would be a major selling point and would offer product differentiation (until the patent expires). At the very least, paranoid parents would not need to worry about their 4 year old children being strangled by their bicycle safety helmets. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On 1/19/2020 10:36 PM, Bertrand wrote:
Bicyclist concussions have gone up, way up, over the last decade just as helmet use continued to rise. You've made that claim before. But we know that there have been huge changes in the way concussions are diagnosed and reported, which have led to concussions "going way up" in many sports, not just cycling. Without a more careful analysis, we can't draw any credible conclusions about helmet effectiveness from the increase in reported bicycle concussions. That's the most optimistic way of interpreting the results, if you're a helmet promoter. But do you want the job of reporting back to a legislator who had to be talked into a MHL? "Yes, I know we promised helmets would reduce TBI. Yes, I know bicyclist TBI instead ROSE over 60%. But trust me, they're working! We're just _noticing_ TBI we never noticed before! Honest!" I think it's very clear that we're noticing TBI that were previously unreported. Â*But the question is whether concussion rates would be even higher (and by how much) without helmets.Â* For what it's worth, I think that helmets have a small effect in reducing TBI, certainly way less than 85%.Â* That Thompson study was nonsense.Â* But so is claiming that an increase in reported concussions proves that helmets are ineffective. The increase in reported concussions with increase in helmet use is not proof. But it is an indication that helmets may not be working as promised. At this point, I think it would be up to the helmet promoters to give proof that this indicator is somehow false. "Maybe" excuses are not enough. And BTW, this issue sidesteps the bigger one in my mind: The pretense that riding a bike is such a huge TBI risk that a countermeasure must be promoted to all cyclists. That remains nonsense. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another RLJ incident | Simon Mason | UK | 6 | September 30th 11 07:31 AM |
An Incident | Jorg Lueke | General | 28 | June 17th 08 04:51 PM |
First incident in ages | Chris Eilbeck | UK | 12 | September 22nd 06 07:52 PM |
Strange incident | Tom Crispin | UK | 7 | March 3rd 06 05:54 PM |
Another incident | MikeyOz | Australia | 18 | January 17th 06 08:48 AM |