Recent fatal crash at UCLA

On Sep 3, 8:11 pm, Chalo wrote:
Dan O wrote:

They're quite different things, aren't they - brakes and helmets.
Brakes have a function and purpose in ordinary riding, which can be
compensated for by a competent rider. You can't really compensate for
the lack of a helmet. (Of course there are those who say there is
nothing there to compensate for.)

In my neighborhood, it is relatively common to see riders with a
helmet, but no brakes.


Sure, but Frank was talking about "in the public eye". The "public
eye" sees only the helmet (or lack thereof), and does not discern the
absence of brakes.

On 9/3/2012 11:27 PM, gpsman wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:58�pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Yet one physician, when asked to comment, said precisely this: �"Wear a
helmet. Wear a helmet. Wear a helmet."

Do you wear a seat belt while motoring...?

Are you aware that whole population studies have shown no significant
reduction in serious brain injury or deaths from increased usage of soft
shell bicycle "helmets" (more appropriately bicycle foam hats)?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I bought one of these since it has a hard shell and potentially offers
some protection against rotational brain injury, but have not crashed
wearing it yet:
http://www.pocsports.com/en/product/1391/trabec-race-mips.

But your attitude does bring up a good reason for wearing a bicycle foam
hat - if you are injured by a cager, a typical jury is more likely to
find for you in a civil case if you were wearing a foam bicycle hat.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Sep 4, 1:11*am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 9/3/2012 11:27 PM, gpsman wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:58 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Yet one physician, when asked to comment, said precisely this: "Wear a
helmet. Wear a helmet. Wear a helmet."

Do you wear a seat belt while motoring...?

Are you aware that whole population studies have shown no significant
reduction in serious brain injury or deaths from increased usage of soft
shell bicycle "helmets" (more appropriately bicycle foam hats)?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I'm aware no such statistics could be valid. Those protected by
helmet from injury requiring medical attention seem unlikely to report
the incident.

But your attitude does bring up a good reason for wearing a bicycle foam
hat - if you are injured by a cager, a typical jury is more likely to
find for you in a civil case if you were wearing a foam bicycle hat.

You sure are good at extrapolation of "Do you wear a seat belt while
motoring...?".
-----

- gpsman

Per gpsman:
I'm aware no such statistics could be valid. Those protected by
helmet from injury requiring medical attention seem unlikely to report
the incident.

But wouldn't that be compensated for in overall injury/fatality
statistics that compare user populations with non-user
populations?

Or might such populations be non-comparable bco differences in
methodology/reporting infrastructure?
--
Pete Cresswell

gpsman wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:58 pm, Frank wrote:

Yet one physician, when asked to comment, said precisely this: "Wear a
helmet. Wear a helmet. Wear a helmet."

Do you wear a seat belt while motoring...?

Yes. Do you want to discuss the differences between seatbelts and bike
helmets?

--
- Frank Krygowski

gpsman wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:11 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

Are you aware that whole population studies have shown no significant
reduction in serious brain injury or deaths from increased usage of soft
shell bicycle "helmets" (more appropriately bicycle foam hats)?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I'm aware no such statistics could be valid. Those protected by
helmet from injury requiring medical attention seem unlikely to report
the incident.

Which of these is the problem he

A) That you're not aware that, if most cyclists are suddenly protected
by helmets, counts of head injuries per cyclist _should_ drop?

Or B) that you're not aware that in such cases, the counts of head
injuries per cyclist did _not_ drop?

The same is true for the percentage of hospitalized cyclists who were
admitted because of head injuries, BTW. If helmet use suddenly jumps
from about 30% to about 90% in a couple years, helmet proponents would
expect a drop in the percentage of cyclists admitted due to head
injuries. But diligent searching of hospital records has shown that the
actual drop was zero.

I've given full citations of those research papers before. I can dig
them out again, if you like.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 4, 10:31*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per gpsman:

I'm aware no such statistics could be valid. *Those protected by
helmet from injury requiring medical attention seem unlikely to report
the incident.

But wouldn't that be compensated for in overall injury/fatality
statistics that compare user populations with non-user
populations?

I don't see how.

Or might such populations be non-comparable bco differences in
methodology/reporting infrastructure?

I suspect the vast majority of head-bump-with-helmet incidents require
no medical attention and therefore go unreported.
-----

- gpsman

On 09/03/2012 10:50 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Sep 3, 2:58 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Chalo wrote:
I was reading yesterday about the fatal crash that happened at the
UCLA campus during Friday night's Critical Mass ride.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...illed-when-he-...

A quick image search for the victim's name returns pictures of fixed
gear bikes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jerico+culata&tbm=isch

The articles mention that he lost control and went wide on a turn
descending a steep hill. Does anyone here know whether the guy was
riding brakeless?

The articles all mention helmets, even though the reporters did not
ascertain whether or not he was wearing one. But the possibility that
he may have been running without brakes seems to have been
overlooked.

Seems that in the public eye, helmets are far more important than brakes.


Why do you say that? I doubt it. I think the public assumes everyone
has brakes, whereas they can readily see many riders don't have
helmets.

They're quite different things, aren't they - brakes and helmets.
Brakes have a function and purpose in ordinary riding, which can be
compensated for by a competent rider. You can't really compensate for
the lack of a helmet. (Of course there are those who say there is
nothing there to compensate for.)

Funny how at the mention of any dead cyclist, our local AHZ has to pipe
up with his bull****. But no, I don't think most people, even cyclists,
know that there are people riding without brakes. Actually, I think
that since it wasn't reported that the rider was not equipped with
brakes, it's likely that that wasn't the case. I imagine that it would
be deemed newsworthy to most journalists.


There was a similar fatality in Ohio about six weeks ago, ironically on
a memorial ride for another cyclist. The rider recently killed suffered
"massive head trauma" despite his helmet.


DANGER! DANGER!

Yet one physician, when asked to comment, said precisely this: "Wear a
helmet. Wear a helmet. Wear a helmet."


We already know you have a problem with that, but his statement
doesn't say or even imply that nothing else matters.


Nothing else matters to the AHZ so they see phantoms every where they look.

On 09/03/2012 11:11 PM, Chalo wrote:
Dan O wrote:

They're quite different things, aren't they - brakes and helmets.
Brakes have a function and purpose in ordinary riding, which can be
compensated for by a competent rider. You can't really compensate for
the lack of a helmet. (Of course there are those who say there is
nothing there to compensate for.)

In my neighborhood, it is relatively common to see riders with a
helmet, but no brakes.


Not around here. But even so, most non riders wouldn't even know
whether there were brakes or not. They would only notice the odd way
that the bike stopped, if it did.

On Sep 4, 10:48*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
gpsman wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:11 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:

Are you aware that whole population studies have shown no significant
reduction in serious brain injury or deaths from increased usage of soft
shell bicycle "helmets" (more appropriately bicycle foam hats)?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I'm aware no such statistics could be valid. *Those protected by
helmet from injury requiring medical attention seem unlikely to report
the incident.

Which of these is the problem he

A) That you're not aware that, if most cyclists are suddenly protected
by helmets, counts of head injuries per cyclist _should_ drop?

Non sequitur.

Or B) that you're not aware that in such cases, the counts of head
injuries per cyclist did _not_ drop?

False dilemma.

C) If statistics only consisted of "counts" we wouldn't need
statisticians.
D) You ignore the scientific principle "correlation does not imply
causation".
E) You ignore severity of injury.

The same is true for the percentage of hospitalized cyclists who were
admitted because of head injuries, BTW.

So...?

*If helmet use suddenly jumps
from about 30% to about 90% in a couple years, helmet proponents would
expect a drop in the percentage of cyclists admitted due to head
injuries. *But diligent searching of hospital records has shown that the
actual drop was zero.

It is a non sequitur. Helmets obviously aren't sufficient to protect
from force so great it results in hospital admission.

I've given full citations of those research papers before. *I can dig
them out again, if you like.

Thanks, that won't be necessary.
-----

- gpsman