|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:46:09 -0800, sms
wrote: On 2/19/2016 2:02 PM, Joe Riel wrote: Sir Ridesalot writes: On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:41:15 PM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 2/19/2016 12:17 PM, Duane wrote: On 19/02/2016 2:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: I was out riding and took a shortcut along a paved MUP. I saw a bicyclist a ways ahead of me take a really nasty tumble when he hit some thin black ice. I saw his head hit the pavement at least three times as he tumbled. I could hear his helmet hitting the pavement as well as see the impacts. It looked as if a couple of times his head bounced off the pavement. WOW! I guess his helmet helped because he was able to get up on his own. He didn't seem confused but I rode with him for about 20 minutes to make sure he was okay. Cheers Roads are nasty here too. Been having this snow/ice/rain/freeze/snow repeat cycle lately. It's actually better when everything stays frozen from December to March. There is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF that those three hits on the pavement would have been any worse had the cyclist not been wearing a helmet. If the cyclist had not been wearing a helmet he would have been riding much more carefully and would have never encountered the black ice. He would have had a truck driving in front of them to clear the ice using a flame thrower. He also would have had studded tires. This whole story is just a lame attempt at promoting the use of helmets by trying to imply that hitting your head on the pavement is a bad thing. The next thing you know someone will be promoting helmets for people walking in icy sidewalks. You are frikkin amazing! You're thousands of kilometers from the event and yet you can tell that the bicyclist said to himself, "Hey, I'm wearing a helment so it doesn't matter how I ride"? The ice was INVISIBLE! Idiot! The guy hit his head hard at lest three times! Steve was being facetious. It's okay, being facetious isn't always a good idea on Usenet. I was trying to fulfill Frank's job requirement of always coming up with an excuse as to why someone whose helmet protected them would not have needed protection if they had not been wearing a helmet, and coming up with other potential dangerous situations where helmets are not normally worn. And, unfortunately, due to your usual inane posts everyone believed that you were serious. -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:41:06 -0800, sms
wrote: The next thing you know someone will be promoting helmets for people walking in icy sidewalks. It's a good pointer, sms, thanks for making it. After 25 years of working with hundreds of people with brain injuries I have seen 2 cyclists with TBIs (one of which occurred in the 1930s when he was a tyke and the other in 1969 as an adult). About 20% of the TBIs I have seen were assaulted, about half were in motor vehicle accidents and the rest were pedestrians, a few attempted suicides (shooting yourself in the head is no guarantee you will die), falls down stairs or in the bathroom. We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
Per Tim McNamara:
We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. -- Pete Cresswell |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On 2/20/2016 5:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tim McNamara: We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. Probably you are wrong. There would likely be no change in concussion rates. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/May-2012/A-Brief-History-of-Football-Head-Injuries-and-a-Look-Towards-the-Future/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On 2/20/2016 5:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tim McNamara: We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. Actually, if they went to helmets more similar to the design of bicycle helmets, and replaced them after every impact, they would likely reduce brain injuries. They type of helmets they use transfer the impact to the head rather than absorbing the impact and destroying the helmet. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On 2/20/2016 9:05 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/20/2016 5:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per Tim McNamara: We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. Actually, if they went to helmets more similar to the design of bicycle helmets, and replaced them after every impact, they would likely reduce brain injuries. They type of helmets they use transfer the impact to the head rather than absorbing the impact and destroying the helmet. Bike helmets cost as little as $15, they're made of a dirt-cheap substance, they're designed only to (just) pass a minimal and simplistic impact test, they "have to" be replaced after any minor impact, and they sell at amazing profit margins. And that last fact is the true reason for their existence. Pro football helmets cost ten times as much, are much more complex, using much more expensive and thoroughly tested materials, must pass much stricter tests, and are usable after hundreds of impacts. The problem with pro football helmets is, essentially, risk compensation. Players feel protected by their helmets (and their body armor) so they subject themselves to intense multiple impacts. It's now becoming known that the protection is overstated, and the overall effect is probably increasing danger. In fact, the sport of American football is markedly different in its strategy and player procedures than it was before the body armor. (The same is true for boxing. In bare knuckle boxing, blows to the head were far less common than in today's boxing with gloves.) All this is a foreseeable result of exaggerating the protective capability of a "safety" device. But that doesn't keep people from claiming that bike helmets are "85% effective." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On 2/20/2016 8:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2016 9:05 AM, sms wrote: On 2/20/2016 5:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per Tim McNamara: We should probably all wear helmets all the time- after all, they do in the NFL! I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. Actually, if they went to helmets more similar to the design of bicycle helmets, and replaced them after every impact, they would likely reduce brain injuries. They type of helmets they use transfer the impact to the head rather than absorbing the impact and destroying the helmet. Bike helmets cost as little as $15, they're made of a dirt-cheap substance, they're designed only to (just) pass a minimal and simplistic impact test, they "have to" be replaced after any minor impact, and they sell at amazing profit margins. And that last fact is the true reason for their existence. Pro football helmets cost ten times as much, are much more complex, using much more expensive and thoroughly tested materials, must pass much stricter tests, and are usable after hundreds of impacts. The problem with pro football helmets is, essentially, risk compensation. Players feel protected by their helmets (and their body armor) so they subject themselves to intense multiple impacts. It's now becoming known that the protection is overstated, and the overall effect is probably increasing danger. In fact, the sport of American football is markedly different in its strategy and player procedures than it was before the body armor. (The same is true for boxing. In bare knuckle boxing, blows to the head were far less common than in today's boxing with gloves.) All this is a foreseeable result of exaggerating the protective capability of a "safety" device. But that doesn't keep people from claiming that bike helmets are "85% effective." But within the metaphysics of sports helmets, they correlate to fewer leg injuries in cyclists and more leg injuries in other sports: http://www.channel3000.com/news/stud...njury/38089644 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
Per sms:
I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain injuries would drop dramatically. Probably you are wrong. There would likely be no change in concussion rates. I based that contention on a discussion I heard by several older world-class former welterweight contenders. Their consensus was that brain injuries in boxing were almost unknown back in the bare-knuckle days. i.e. old boxers did not turn up punch-drunk. The reason: fighters could not afford to trade punches and therefore their brains did not get rattled around. Boxing was essentially an endurance contest: circling, feinting, trying to get in that first punch. Once the first punch was landed, the fight was soon to be over because a person can't take that much in the way of bare-knuckle punches. I extrapolated that to football because no padding or helmets would make it impractical for players to use their bodies as weapons. OTOH, it wouldn't be football anymore... more like a USA version of rugby. -- Pete Cresswell |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Saw a bicyclist take a nasty spill today
On 2/20/2016 8:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I extrapolated that to football because no padding or helmets would make it impractical for players to use their bodies as weapons. OTOH, it wouldn't be football anymore... more like a USA version of rugby. Except prior to all the protective equipment used in football their were more injuries not less. The concussion issue was not really solved by the type of helmets being used, as that article explains. The fact that the helmet is designed to endure multiple impacts is one of the problems. Obviously the teams would not like the idea of having to replace the helmets every time one of them has an impact, it would delay the game tremendously. The reason that bicycle helmets are so effective at preventing brain injuries is because they are "single impact." The same goes for a lot of other safety equipment that is designed for crashes. Numerous case studies have shown bicycle helmets to be extremely effective and preventing brain injuries. A study published in the British Medical Journal stated that at realistic impact speeds of 12-14 MPH, bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 12 and 14 MPH respectively). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Almost collided with a bicyclist today | Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers | General | 32 | July 23rd 10 08:44 PM |
Bicyclist airlifted after spill in Tam Valley | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 3 | September 3rd 08 06:32 PM |
Bicyclist airlifted after spill in Tam Valley | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 3 | September 3rd 08 06:32 PM |
incident with bicyclist today | [email protected] | General | 32 | August 29th 08 07:44 PM |
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS | General | 484 | March 12th 08 08:56 PM |