Brandt on soldred/tied spoking

On 10/04/2015 3:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.

In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of gathering information about helmet usage and screening for head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to do with road rash.

... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!" promotion is
leading to the collection of data to be used for helmet promotion. But
_only_ for people on two-wheelers* - i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.

Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them whispering inside the walls.

Huh. I thought those were mice.

But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.


Last time I was at an ER in Canada it was with a dislocated shoulder and
it took me over 5 hours to get treated. I guess that there are some
people that would go through that for road rash or whatever trivializing
example injury someone wants to use but I don't think it's SOP. Maybe
in Ontario SRA?

Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing . . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!


You should try that. Tell the ER guys that cycling is safer than
walking. A little levity often helps trying situations.

Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic is going to have to punt on that one.

1.6% less than Hockey. I wonder if hockey is safer than walking too?

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 3:00:49 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.

In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of gathering information about helmet usage and screening for head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to do with road rash.

... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!" promotion is
leading to the collection of data to be used for helmet promotion. But
_only_ for people on two-wheelers* - i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.

Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them whispering inside the walls..

Huh. I thought those were mice.

But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing . . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!

Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic is going to have to punt on that one.

-- Jay Beattie.

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to have those areas well cleaned.

Cheers

On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 3:00:49 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.

In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of gathering information about helmet usage and screening for head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to do with road rash.

... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!" promotion is
leading to the collection of data to be used for helmet promotion. But
_only_ for people on two-wheelers* - i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.

Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them whispering inside the walls.

Huh. I thought those were mice.

But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing . . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!

Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic is going to have to punt on that one.

-- Jay Beattie.

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to have those areas well cleaned.



It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 3:00:49 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.

In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of gathering information about helmet usage and screening for head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to do with road rash.

... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!" promotion is
leading to the collection of data to be used for helmet promotion. But
_only_ for people on two-wheelers* - i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.

Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them whispering inside the walls.

Huh. I thought those were mice.

But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing . . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!

Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic is going to have to punt on that one.

-- Jay Beattie.

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to have those areas well cleaned.



It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

Yes, in this NG, it is code for a trivial skin injury worthy of a band-aid at most. Working ambulance, I saw motorcycle accidents where road rash went right through the muscle layers or down to the bone (e.g. outside of the knee or through the scalp) -- but I guess at that point you call it something other than road rash.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie writes:

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 1:16:14 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 3:00:49 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.
In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic
charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that
takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike
incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of
gathering information about helmet usage and screening for
head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking
and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to
do with road rash.
... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!"
promotion is leading to the collection of data to be used for
helmet promotion. But _only_ for people on two-wheelers* -
i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.
Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to
enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them
whispering inside the walls.
Huh. I thought those were mice.
But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for
such a safe activity?
If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a
bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about
helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on
helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an
emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious
injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but
maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think
fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been
injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the
counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.
Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell
cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is
safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell
people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than
driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing
. . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull
fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because
we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!
Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for
sports-related
TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic
is going to have to punt on that one.
-- Jay Beattie.
It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to
the ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly
extensive and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I
wanted to be sure I didn't get complications fron some weird
infection so went to have those areas well cleaned.



It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean
some slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not
always the case.

Yes, in this NG, it is code for a trivial skin injury worthy of a
band-aid at most. Working ambulance, I saw motorcycle accidents where
road rash went right through the muscle layers or down to the bone
(e.g. outside of the knee or through the scalp) -- but I guess at that
point you call it something other than road rash.

-- Jay Beattie.

If it doesn't leave a permanent scar after healing I wouldn't consider
it road rash. Maybe I need a better plastic surgeon.


--
Joe Riel

On 4/10/2015 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:02:03 -0500, "T0m $herman"
wrote:

On 4/8/2015 7:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:51:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/8/2015 9:35 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
John B. Slocomb writes:

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:35:23 -0500, "T0m $herman"
wrote:

On 4/8/2015 12:30 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 23:44:26 -0500, "T0m $herman"
wrote:

On 2/22/2015 9:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 05:52:02 -0800,
wrote:
On 2/22/2015 3:58 AM, Earls61 wrote:
How is Jobst doing? Has anybody heard anything?

snip

At work, I know someone who knows him slightly. All I heard was that
he has a caretaker.

Think about the choices you make and the implications.
The implication being...?

The World's Greatest Expertâ„¢ thinks if Jobst Brandt had been wearing a
Magic Foam Bicycle Hatâ„¢, he would still be actively riding and posting
to RBT.

I thought that Brandt broke his hip initially. Do they have helmets
for hips now?

According to Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, Magic Foam Bicycle Hats prevent
69% of leg injuries.

Damn! I must be in the low 31% as it didn't help me a bit when I
crashed :-(

That explains why, after crashing and breaking my femur, the
EMTs, nurses, and doctors asked whether I was wearing a helmet.
Probably I was wearing it wrongly...


http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-wear-a-bike-helmet/

Two arms, two legs, and a head? Bike shops gonna get rich selling
helmets.

Knee, hip, back, elbow, and shoulder armor really does work, but it is
too hot, restrictive, and heavy for any type of non-gravity powered
bicycling.


During your absence there was a discussion about helmets and someone
commented that what he was looking for was light weight and cool. So
perhaps foam armor with ventilation holes is the answer.

I have an armored leather suit that is heavier than the minimum UCI
legal bicycle weight.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 4/10/2015 2:14 PM, wrote:
Jay scores search of the weak..

common sense ! which is surprise

tho Golf izza stunner...

Skakal vs The State

Fud vs Fud ?

boing ?

I had thought Golf was infor ankles and social diseases

Golf is a game, not a sport.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Yes, in this NG, it is code for a trivial skin injury worthy of a band-aid at most. Working ambulance, I saw motorcycle accidents where road rash went right through the muscle layers or down to the bone (e.g. outside of the knee or through the scalp) -- but I guess at that point you call it something other than road rash.

-- Jay Beattie.

Still called road rash - but one could also call it the result of stupidity.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 5:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:08:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/9/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:03:07 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Like I said no one at the ER has ever asked me if I was
wearing a helmet.

In the US, the ED staff is working from a script -- an Epic charting system or home-grown electronic charting system that takes them through a list of questions for every MVA/bike incident. It will have a helmet question as a means of gathering information about helmet usage and screening for head injuries. It will also ask about alcohol use, smoking and a lot of other stuff that has appears to have nothing to do with road rash.

... which means, "Of course you should wear a helmet!" promotion is
leading to the collection of data to be used for helmet promotion. But
_only_ for people on two-wheelers* - i.e. bicycles and motorcycles.

Yes, Frank, it's all part of the giant conspiracy out to enslave your head. Listen carefully . . . you can hear them whispering inside the walls.

Huh. I thought those were mice.

But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen for head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the person is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a serious injury(s). Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in Canada -- who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Perhaps Epic could impose a requirement that physicians tell cyclists who have been involved in accidents that "cycling is safer than walking!" They could also have a requirement to tell people who tripped while walking that "walking is safer than driving!" And tell drivers that driving is safer than skiing . . . and tell skiers that skiing is safer than, well, bull fighting! Everyone should feel good about everything because we're all unique little snowflakes and winners in our own right!

Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm Epic is going to have to punt on that one.

-- Jay Beattie.

Obvious evidence that cycling should be outlawed.

But, on the other hand the "% of all visits for injuries that were
TBIs" seems to be the highest for the "S4" age group, so perhaps the
solution is training wheels on the baby's bike.

But, on the other hand, the total number of children in the S4" group
treated for TBI amount to some 0.06% of the total S4 population.

And, of course, the major cause of death among this age group is still
the good old auto accident.

Deaths by suffocation are also on the rise, up by nearly a third
during the past decade.

Statistics can "prove" many things.
--

cheers,

John B.

On 4/10/2015 4:16 PM, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the
ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive
and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be
sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to
have those areas well cleaned.

It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

I guess I'm an outlier again. I've had road rash once that I recall,
which means, since turning 18 (about 50 years ago). It was a patch
about 2 cm diameter on my knee. I was more upset that I tore my nice
(non-cycling-specific) jacket.

I do try hard to keep the tires between me and the ground.

--
- Frank Krygowski