|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
Frank K wrote in part: I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to hitting my head. Not very remarkable. Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say. That's where you're wrong Frank. Your injury free cycling career is the exception, not the rule. Cycling for most people is probably not injury free. The question is, what type of injuries are we to expect? Is brain damage a valid expectation of riding a bike, versus driving a car or walking? I think skinned knees and elbows are probably the more likely expectation. Head injury is certainly a possibility. But then, head injury is certainly a possibility taking your morning shower too, isn't it. SMH |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
If you ever see a _compound fracture of the face_ up close, let alone experience it, it will surely color your perceptions on the danger of cycling. If you ever ride through a pile of teeth to hold a friend's hand as he bleeds from the eyesockets and whispers am I going to die from the red and white mess that used to be the lower half of his face, and you wonder where the **** is that ambulance? your perceptions will likewise be changed. If you ever have a friend who gets smashed by a car, goes to the hospital, and comes out a week later looking absolutely nothing like he did before the accident, it might make you think. If you ever have a friend who gets smashed by a hit and run, wakes up from a coma and can't speak a sentence (and still can't), that too will mess with your head. I know another guy who was nearly killed when a car ran a stop--all his ribs were broken and his diaphragm was torn on one side. The car didn't even touch him, it hit his back wheel and did its damage from the violence of the twisting. I have seen all these things and much more. You would probably like to dismiss these examples as things that happen to unlawful cyclists riding unsafely, but then you would be very, very wrong. In all the examples above, except for one that remains undetermined, an experienced and skilled cyclist was riding lawfully at the time of a very brutal, life-changing accident. These were not my clumsiest friends. I have also seen the usual collarbone breaks, broken wrists, shoulder dislocations, concussions, lacerations ad nauseum. Personally I have busted a few ribs, ripped my shoulder but good, smacked my head on a Mercedes, and almost ripped my pinky finger clean off. You could poll the newsgroup about their various injuries but I don't think we have the bandwidth. You've seen all these injuries from cycling accidents? None of the same type of stuff from just walkers, roller bladers, motorists, bathers??? What sort of place do you live or work? Seems it must be a location with extremely unfortunate bicyclists, or perhaps a hospital or ambulance service that caters solely to injured cyclists? If I lived or worked your location, I guess I'd give up cycling altogether, or at least wear a full coverage helmet, full leathers and boots, and probably a kevlar bulletproof vest, elbow and knee pads, if I dared even think of taking the bike out for a spin! SMH |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
maxo wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:37:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Perhaps you should begin wondering what you're doing wrong. Perhaps you should stop being an arrogant prick dumb****. Hmm. Sounds like rational discussion isn't your thing, eh? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
Frank K wrote in part: Well I guess I gotta call bull**** on that one, unless you can produce some numbers that show "injuries beyond abrasions and bruises are very rare." Good luck. Hmm. Numbers? See below. You gave--once again, like a freakin' broken record--fatality stats, which have nothing to do with your completely unfounded claim that "injuries beyond abrasions and bruises are very rare." Are you really that dense? FATALITY STATS DO NOT DEFINE THE DANGER OF CYCLING. Whew. That felt good. Not everything that feels good is impressive, Robert. There aren't any numbers that back up your claim. Admit it, stop sneaking around. Here's the situation: Fatality stats are what are most often collected, and are the most reliable, because there's almost never much disagreement about whether or not a person has died. To explain, that is in contrast to, say, head injuries. Most people hear that phrase and think "Brain injury," but some helmet proponents have called cuts to the ears "head injuries" in order to inflate scary numbers. "Death" is well defined. "Head injury" is not. Ditto for "serious injury." Also, fatalities (from any source) are almost never considered negiligible. This is in direct contrast to abrasions, cuts, and even things like broken collarbones. Sure, these things hurt, they must be treated, and they're important to the person that suffers them, BUT they rarely show up in any national statistics, because nobody cares much how many skinned knees - or even broken collar bones - there are in this country! So you're asking about data that includes items nobody cares much about. Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find. There has been at least one survey (of League of American Bicyclist members) asking about the frequency of "serious" bike crashes. Unfortunately, the resulting data isn't very useful, since it defined "serious" as "more than $50 damage, or requiring [some unspecified] medical treatment." Clearly, in a population of people whose derailleur may sell for $150, a $50 crash needn't be very "serious." But that survey showed roughly one $50 crash every 10,000 miles. IIRC, the average mileage for LAB members is about 1500 miles per year, so those crashes come maybe once every seven years. I don't, AFAIK, have any data on how many miles are ridden between cyclist trips to the ER. (But please note! If YOU want to spend time in the library looking for this, you certainly should! Report back here with citations of the relevant papers, and some of us will probably read them.) I have a little data on number of ER visits per year in the US. In that count, basketball (640,000) beats bicycling (560,000). Not far behind are beds and bedclothes (400,000), then chairs and sofas (300,000). So if you want to scare people by saying their bike is more dangerous than their sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know it's safer than their basketball! (That data's from the CPSC.) I do have the article mentioned before, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports..." by Stutts, J.C. et. al , Transportation Research Record 1168. That one made clear that even most trips to the ER are for no worse than minor injuries. And FWIW, I have a family member who is an ER physician. His experience confirms that. And yes, you may have ridden more miles than I do. I average only about 2500 miles per year. I wish my job didn't take up so much time, but it does, and cycling is not my only insterest. snip rest of passive-aggressive claim to massive experience Frank, I'm guessing I'm about half your age, and I already have accumulated three times your total mileage. My miles were primarily in city traffic rather than on the open road. Three times, Frank. Think of how much more experience I might have when I'm your age. You might want to just go back to bed now. I don't claim to be a mileage champ, Robert. I do, however, claim to have enough knowledge and experience to know what I'm talking about. That includes both first hand and second hand, i.e. from other cyclists with whom I've ridden. I also think I've read and studied far more about this issue than you have. Now, perhaps I'm wrong there. But I note that, despite your chiding me about numbers, you've given nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies. Your war stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not what's considered robust data. The only agenda I have is to tell the truth about riding in traffic. Anybody who can call these experiences "accident pornography" obviously is speaking from complete innocence, and not only that, but you're being disrespectful to my friends who suffered these injuries. Anybody riding in traffic could suffer the same fate. ^^^^^ And anyone driving in traffic _could_ suffer the same fate. Anyone walking near traffic _could_ suffer the same fate. Besides, anyone who goes swimming could drown. Anyone who climbs a ladder, or descends a staircase, could fall. And from what I've been able to find, these are all more likely than the horror stories with which you'd like to scare us. I just don't know what to say about someone who, effectively, rides his bike down the street while shouting "BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!! BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!!" Are you wanting people to think you're macho by risking it? Are you trying to get more space at the bike racks? It's as contradictory as chiding me for lacking satisfactory numbers, while posting no numbers of your own. It's just weird! Personally, I wish you'd take up fast driving. Maybe after you crashed a few cars, you'd be inspired to shout about how dangerous motoring is. Maybe you'd start scaring people out of their cars. Now _that_ would do the world some good! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------ Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble! -- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ---- |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
There is a bloody potential that hangs over urban cyclists. Oh good grief. Take up driving, would you? Please? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
Frank K again:
snip, snip, snip Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find. So why do you keep making claims you can't back up? The fact that injury numbers are "hard to find" is precisely my point --thanks for taking the baton and running with it. They are hard to find because they are impossible to gather. The fact that fatality stats are easy to gather does not make them particularly useful in this discussion. In fact, that fatality numbers are so readily available has _obscured_ the issue in many important ways. You must understand that after your involvement in the helmet "debate." I also think I've read and studied far more about this issue than you have. Now, perhaps I'm wrong there. Yeah, perhaps. ... But I note that, despite your chiding me about numbers, you've given nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies. Your war stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not what's considered robust data. Boy Frank, you sure like to talk, but you don't like to listen. I have already posted two or three or nine times in a variety of threads including this one the same USCPSC numbers you posted above, maybe you missed it. I also posted additional USCPSC numbers that show outpatient visits are roughly equal to ER visits. [Correction: in a recent post I said that NEISS showed one million er visits and one million outpatient visits; I meant to write roughly half million er visits and half million outpatient visits.] I also posted the same LAW numbers you posted above, in addition to numbers from the CTC, and other stats presented by John Forester in Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Traffic Engineers. Forester's compilation of accident stats for college students and beginning cyclists is particularly ugly. I guess you won't be posting those anytime soon. Would you like me too? That's about it in terms of available injury data. Can you guess why I know this Frank? Because I have studied the issue extensively. None of the numbers available suggest that serious injuries are "vanishingly rare." Sorry dude. Nice phrase though. And anyone driving in traffic _could_ suffer the same fate. Anyone walking near traffic _could_ suffer the same fate. Besides, anyone who goes swimming could drown. Anyone who climbs a ladder, or descends a staircase, could fall. So let me get this straight. Your belief is that the particular risks associated with "normal," lawful cycling extend, realistically, only to minor injuries, abrasions, skinned knees, these sorts of things. More serious injuries are in your words "vanishingly rare" and therefore you feel that almost any concern about these injuries or attempt to avoid them would just be silly, "handwringing." Fascinating.. What I can't figure out is, if these serious injuries are so rare, how come so many dedicated cyclists have experienced them? I wonder how your combination of smugness and innocence is playing with others on this newsgroup who have experienced serious wrecks, like Peter Chisholm, Mike J., Mark Hickey, etc. etc. I just don't know what to say about someone who, effectively, rides his bike down the street while shouting "BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!! BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!!" No I'm a quiet guy. I always figured the danger of cycling in traffic was pretty obvious to an intelligent person, then someone comes along who rides like 2000 miles a year who insists that all the injuries I've seen and experienced are freakishly rare, so I have to answer that drivel. Robert |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
There is a bloody potential that hangs over urban cyclists. Oh good grief. Take up driving, would you? Please? Oh go skin your knees. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
There is a bloody potential that hangs over urban cyclists. Oh good grief. Take up driving, would you? Please? Oh go skin your knees. Nah. I'm good enough to stay vertical. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
R15757 wrote:
Frank K again: snip, snip, snip Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find. So why do you keep making claims you can't back up? The fact that injury numbers are "hard to find" is precisely my point --thanks for taking the baton and running with it. Um... yes, we apparently agree, although I had no idea that was your point. Seems to me your point is that riding bikes is unusually dangerous. We may be able to close this thread quickly. If you _don't_ think cycling is unusually dangerous, say so! We can shake hands and have a figurative beer together. Otherwise... They are hard to find because they are impossible to gather. Well, not impossible. They are difficult to gather because nobody is interested in throwing the necessary money toward such a minor problem. The fact that fatality stats are easy to gather does not make them particularly useful in this discussion. Fatality stats form a useful proxy for serious injury stats. IOW, public health people use fatality data to estimate injury data. It's not perfectly accurate, of course, but accurate enough to be useful. In fact, that fatality numbers are so readily available has _obscured_ the issue in many important ways. ??? Sounds like you're saying that few people die on bikes, and that hides the unprovable fact that tons and tons of people are injured! If that is, indeed, what you mean, then you should prove it. As is, you're merely begging the question - an elementary mistake in logic. .. I note that, despite your chiding me about numbers, you've given nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies. Your war stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not what's considered robust data. Boy Frank, you sure like to talk, but you don't like to listen. I have already posted two or three or nine times in a variety of threads including this one the same USCPSC numbers you posted above, maybe you missed it. Maybe I did miss it. And perhaps my memory's bad. But in _this_ thread, you've been giving no numbers, while criticizing mine. In fact, the only numbers you finally did give are the ones you now admit being in error by a factor of two! If numbers posted in _other_ threads absolve you, my similar ones should certainly absolve me. But given your anonymous handle, you shouldn't expect anyone to pay attention to anything but what you say in this thread. None of the numbers available suggest that serious injuries are "vanishingly rare." Sorry dude. Nice phrase though. Ah well. To me, what's important is: the majority of bike-related ER visits are for minor injuries; and bike ER visits are not much more common than those caused by beds and bedclothes. For all I know, you have lots of horror stories of bedclothes injuries. Maybe that colors your outlook? Whatever. If those facts don't satisfy you, I'd say it's up to you to give numbers indicating serious bike injuries are very common. Using the lack of evidence to "prove" they are common is absolute nonsense. So let me get this straight. Your belief is that the particular risks associated with "normal," lawful cycling extend, realistically, only to minor injuries, abrasions, skinned knees, these sorts of things. That's pretty much it. It's not impossible to get a serious injury - either by cycling, or by walking in a crosswalk - but it's not likely to happen to any particular cyclist (or walker) in the next couple hundred years, statistically speaking. If people learn to ride lawfully and reasonably, they'll be as safe as if they were in a car. Per-hour data for cycling, motoring and walking confirm that. (I posted it recently.) More serious injuries are in your words "vanishingly rare" and therefore you feel that almost any concern about these injuries or attempt to avoid them would just be silly, "handwringing." Fascinating.. Nope, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. What I meant was that harping on the few horror stories gives a distorted image of cycling, portrays it as an "extreme" activity, and is bad for cycling and for cyclists. It's counterproductive. To avoid such injuries, what a person needs to do is cycle lawfully and reasonably. It's easy to learn. A child can do it - literally. What I can't figure out is, if these serious injuries are so rare, how come so many dedicated cyclists have experienced them? "So many" is wonderfully vague. But obviously, we hear the accounts because there are lots and lots of dedicated cyclists, and today's communication is rather wonderful. People's fear mechanisms are still tuned to the days of isolated villages. If a mother heard about a child carried off by a tiger, it was pertinent, and it caused her to keep her child indoors. Obviously, that tiger was close by. Today, we apparently get posters to usenet who scan Google for "bicycle" and "death" and cheerfully report every incident in America. Or we get anonymous posters from God-knows-where who tell tales of buddies bleeding from the eyes. Well, in a country with many, many millions of cyclists, these things will happen - but they are still rare. It's all pretty straightforward. I always figured the danger of cycling in traffic was pretty obvious to an intelligent person... The danger of cycling in traffic is greatly overstated by many supposedly intelligent people. I see that you are enthusiastically dedicated to this overstating. You can't find numbers to back you up, so you rely on horror stories. Fine. But I repeat, I really do wish you'd find a different hobby to treat this way. You do cycling, and cyclists, no good. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out...
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
In umpteen years of cycling I have fallen from my bike to the ground exactly twice: once when something got lodged in the front wheel, which sent me headfirst into the ground (no helmet, survived OK); the other was when I hit a diesel slick on the 'bent and went down on my arse (missing my head by 3ft). ..... but still landing on your brains! (:-) pk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet law can save lives | Garrison Hilliard | General | 146 | May 19th 04 05:42 AM |
How Do You Know if a Helmet Fits? | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 11 | April 24th 04 09:14 PM |
A Pleasant Helmet Debate | Stephen Harding | General | 12 | February 26th 04 07:32 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |