WIPEOUT!

On 2016-08-05 13:21, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: Snipped A
helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you
do need it you're really glad it's there.

I'm surprised at how many believe that if a person who takes a nasty
fall off a bicycle at speed, hits there helmet against the road a
number of times believe that had the person not been wearing a helmet
that the head would not have hit the pavement at all. Almost
inconceivable that such a belief exists. I remember watching Steve
Bauer on TV during a race when iirc correctly his front tire blew or
rolled off the rim and Steve went down very hard and rolled a few
times before attempting to get back on his feet. His momentum was so
great that he rolled again and you could actually hear his helmeted
head strike the pavement again. He was able to continue riding.
Helmets may or may not help in every crash but to say that had one
not been wearing a helmet would have resulted in the head not hitting
the pavement at all? Some are so anti-helmet they'll ignore all the
laws of physics.


Those are usually the head-in-the-sand guys. I have heard it live where
a guy in front of me hit a rut the wrong way, I stopped, he flew OTB,
landed on his back and then his helmet hit hard on a rock with a loud
*THWOCK* and he was ok. Except a new helmet had to be bought but those
$30 are much better than an ambulance ride and $500 co-pay per day in
the clinic, or worse.

I also saw the aftermath of a much harder crash where the styrofoam in
the helmet did a full job. It was compacted to less than 1/2 its normal
thickness at one area. Many folks diss helmets as "styrofoam
concoctions", blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their cars
one often finds ... styrofoam.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:23:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 13:21, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: Snipped A
helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you
do need it you're really glad it's there.

I'm surprised at how many believe that if a person who takes a nasty
fall off a bicycle at speed, hits there helmet against the road a
number of times believe that had the person not been wearing a helmet
that the head would not have hit the pavement at all. Almost
inconceivable that such a belief exists. I remember watching Steve
Bauer on TV during a race when iirc correctly his front tire blew or
rolled off the rim and Steve went down very hard and rolled a few
times before attempting to get back on his feet. His momentum was so
great that he rolled again and you could actually hear his helmeted
head strike the pavement again. He was able to continue riding.
Helmets may or may not help in every crash but to say that had one
not been wearing a helmet would have resulted in the head not hitting
the pavement at all? Some are so anti-helmet they'll ignore all the
laws of physics.


Those are usually the head-in-the-sand guys. I have heard it live where
a guy in front of me hit a rut the wrong way, I stopped, he flew OTB,
landed on his back and then his helmet hit hard on a rock with a loud
*THWOCK* and he was ok. Except a new helmet had to be bought but those
$30 are much better than an ambulance ride and $500 co-pay per day in
the clinic, or worse.

I also saw the aftermath of a much harder crash where the styrofoam in
the helmet did a full job. It was compacted to less than 1/2 its normal
thickness at one area. Many folks diss helmets as "styrofoam
concoctions", blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their cars
one often finds ... styrofoam.

Well, I just went out and had a look at my wife's Honda Jazz. No
Styrofoam behind the bumpers. So given that you got that wrong one can
only speculate what else you get wrong.

What is the school yard chant? "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 2016-08-05 16:20, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:23:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 13:21, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: Snipped A
helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you
do need it you're really glad it's there.

I'm surprised at how many believe that if a person who takes a nasty
fall off a bicycle at speed, hits there helmet against the road a
number of times believe that had the person not been wearing a helmet
that the head would not have hit the pavement at all. Almost
inconceivable that such a belief exists. I remember watching Steve
Bauer on TV during a race when iirc correctly his front tire blew or
rolled off the rim and Steve went down very hard and rolled a few
times before attempting to get back on his feet. His momentum was so
great that he rolled again and you could actually hear his helmeted
head strike the pavement again. He was able to continue riding.
Helmets may or may not help in every crash but to say that had one
not been wearing a helmet would have resulted in the head not hitting
the pavement at all? Some are so anti-helmet they'll ignore all the
laws of physics.


Those are usually the head-in-the-sand guys. I have heard it live where
a guy in front of me hit a rut the wrong way, I stopped, he flew OTB,
landed on his back and then his helmet hit hard on a rock with a loud
*THWOCK* and he was ok. Except a new helmet had to be bought but those
$30 are much better than an ambulance ride and $500 co-pay per day in
the clinic, or worse.

I also saw the aftermath of a much harder crash where the styrofoam in
the helmet did a full job. It was compacted to less than 1/2 its normal
thickness at one area. Many folks diss helmets as "styrofoam
concoctions", blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their cars
one often finds ... styrofoam.

Well, I just went out and had a look at my wife's Honda Jazz. No
Styrofoam behind the bumpers. So given that you got that wrong one can
only speculate what else you get wrong.


The world's multitude of cars does not solely consist of Honda Jazz.
Cheap cars often don't have styrofoam absorber material. Better not get
into a crash in one.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/foam-b...rber-9498.html
http://www.carparts.com/bumper-absorber

q.e.d.

Just like with helmets you are supposed to replace this styrofoam piece
after an accident where the bumper got hit.


What is the school yard chant? "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"?


You could have at least spent 10 seconds on a web search engine before
blurting out such nonsense and embarrassing yourself.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:43:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 16:20, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:23:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 13:21, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: Snipped A
helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you
do need it you're really glad it's there.

I'm surprised at how many believe that if a person who takes a nasty
fall off a bicycle at speed, hits there helmet against the road a
number of times believe that had the person not been wearing a helmet
that the head would not have hit the pavement at all. Almost
inconceivable that such a belief exists. I remember watching Steve
Bauer on TV during a race when iirc correctly his front tire blew or
rolled off the rim and Steve went down very hard and rolled a few
times before attempting to get back on his feet. His momentum was so
great that he rolled again and you could actually hear his helmeted
head strike the pavement again. He was able to continue riding.
Helmets may or may not help in every crash but to say that had one
not been wearing a helmet would have resulted in the head not hitting
the pavement at all? Some are so anti-helmet they'll ignore all the
laws of physics.


Those are usually the head-in-the-sand guys. I have heard it live where
a guy in front of me hit a rut the wrong way, I stopped, he flew OTB,
landed on his back and then his helmet hit hard on a rock with a loud
*THWOCK* and he was ok. Except a new helmet had to be bought but those
$30 are much better than an ambulance ride and $500 co-pay per day in
the clinic, or worse.

I also saw the aftermath of a much harder crash where the styrofoam in
the helmet did a full job. It was compacted to less than 1/2 its normal
thickness at one area. Many folks diss helmets as "styrofoam
concoctions", blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their cars
one often finds ... styrofoam.

Well, I just went out and had a look at my wife's Honda Jazz. No
Styrofoam behind the bumpers. So given that you got that wrong one can
only speculate what else you get wrong.


The world's multitude of cars does not solely consist of Honda Jazz.
Cheap cars often don't have styrofoam absorber material. Better not get
into a crash in one.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/foam-b...rber-9498.html
http://www.carparts.com/bumper-absorber

q.e.d.

Just like with helmets you are supposed to replace this styrofoam piece
after an accident where the bumper got hit.


What is the school yard chant? "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"?


You could have at least spent 10 seconds on a web search engine before
blurting out such nonsense and embarrassing yourself.


But you said, "blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their
cars one often finds ... Styrofoam."

So I did exactly what you seem to suggest and went and looked and no
Styrofoam. So what should I say? "Oh! There must be some Styrofoam
there somewhere, or maybe it fell off?" Or perhaps the more logical
thing, since there was never any Styrofoam there so the guy that told
me that there was is either incredibly stupid, or a liar?

And by the way, I didn't have to check the bumpers of my pickup as
I've had them off and no Styrofoam there either.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/5/2016 4:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-05 12:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2016 3:38 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-05 11:46, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:06:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
On 2016-08-05 06:45, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Was with a group ride the other day and saw a guy take a really nasty
spill. We were riding at about 55 kph down a hill that has a acute
turn at the bottom. The guy hit some sand that had washed onto the
road, and the bike slid out from under him and he commenced to tumble
down the road. He would have hit his head at least four times that I
saw but fortunately his helmet was what hit the road those times.
Other than some road rash which we were able to wash he had no other
injuries other than a fair bit of bruising that showed uop as time
went by. He was able to get up and contine our ride but his helmet
was a real mess.

Draw your own conclusions.


He'd likely still be alive if he had worn a helmet:

Ummm, what? He was wearing a helmet and he did survive- quite well, it
appears.


I meant the guy in my link below.


http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e93369152.html

It seems we now almost have one accident per month around Sacramento
that ends up fatal for the cyclist.

That would seem to be a highly disproportionate death rate compared to
the rest of the US as a whole. Are there roving gangs of vigilantes
targeting cyclists in Sacramento? An automotive version of ISIS?


I don't know what it is but this year I read about a killed cyclist in
our local paper just about monthly :-(

There is also an increase in very callous car driver behavior in that
they simply leave the scene and leave the cyclist to die in the road or
risk getting run over by another vehicle. There are a number of roads
out here I simply will not cycle but only travel by car.


One of the MTB riders from our village took a nasty OTB spill
recently. It ended up with a painful concussion, probably from hitting
rocks. If he hadn't worn his helmet who knows.

Unfortunately "who knows" is correct, given the limitations of
protection provided by helmets. Although I'd bet on painful scalp
lacerations without a helmet, assuming he was protected from those. I
think a lack of road rash on one's head is one of the reasonable
benefits of helmets. And that's not nothing.


Here is a typical bush road in our area:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Chapparal1.JPG

I went OTB there a few weeks ago when a small loose tree branch got
sucked into the front spokes and blocked the wheel. I lucked out and saw
a larger rock "fly by" my head while rolling. However, if you hit your
noggin on some of those rocks sticking out the ground it could split the
skull. A helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

That's why bicyclist fatalities have NOT fallen as fast as those of
pedestrians since helmets became popular?

That's why bicyclist concussions are UP something like 67% since helmets
became popular?

I don't doubt that a helmet "can" save the day. It's just that it seems
to be a rather small value of "can" - that is, small enough to be
undetectable in national data.

And now we shall look at some real data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755017/

That study examined the effect of helmet _laws_. Yes, it found 2.0 kid
fatalities per million population in states with kids' MHLs, vs. 2.5 per
million in states without kids' MHLs. But as they say, "Our study does
not address the effect of helmet laws on ridership." And of course,
there are many other possible confounding factors.

And naturally, there are studies which found no helmet benefit. The
authors mention Castle SL, Burke RV, Arbogast H, Upperman JS. Bicycle
helmet legislation and injury patterns in trauma patients under age 18.
J Surg Res. 2012 Apr;173:327–331, but there are others as well.

In any case, it seems to me that the appropriate measure would be
fatalities per rider (or better, per mile ridden) just before and soon
after a MHL was enacted. Unfortunately, the U.S. puts very little
effort into assessing the amount of cycling that takes place.

We can look at long term data, though, for the entire U.S. and for
Canada. That shows that bicycle fatalities have followed almost
precisely the same trend as pedestrian fatalities in the years that bike
helmets became super-popular. Fatalities of both groups have been in
long term decline (as are almost all other accidental deaths, probably
because emergency medicine is improving). But there's no evidence of an
extra benefit to cyclists caused by much greater helmet use.

See http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
and http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Where are the missing bike fatalities that correspond to the countless
"My helmet saved my life!!!" claims?

(And why aren't pedestrians urged to wear helmets??)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/5/2016 4:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you do need it you're really glad it's there.

"WHEN you need it?"

I've been an enthusiastic adult cyclist since 1972. Before that, I rode
nearly every day as a pre-teen and as a teenager. Somehow I never
needed one.

If a person is (say) regularly competing in track or criterium races,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is careening around the
woods on a mountain bike, testing his limits and breaking equipment,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is terminally clumsy, or so
terminally stupid that he's constantly pushing the limits of traction on
pavement, perhaps "when" is appropriate.

But I'm sure the vast majority of people who wear helmets will never
really need them. After all, bicycling existed in all its current forms
- even road racing through mountains - long before there were styrofoam
helmets. Contrary to current myths, there was never any great plague of
brain injury fatalities.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:56:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2016 4:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you do need it you're really glad it's there.

"WHEN you need it?"

I've been an enthusiastic adult cyclist since 1972. Before that, I rode
nearly every day as a pre-teen and as a teenager. Somehow I never
needed one.

If a person is (say) regularly competing in track or criterium races,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is careening around the
woods on a mountain bike, testing his limits and breaking equipment,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is terminally clumsy, or so
terminally stupid that he's constantly pushing the limits of traction on
pavement, perhaps "when" is appropriate.

But I'm sure the vast majority of people who wear helmets will never
really need them. After all, bicycling existed in all its current forms
- even road racing through mountains - long before there were styrofoam
helmets. Contrary to current myths, there was never any great plague of
brain injury fatalities.

Perhaps we need a new category to distinguish cyclists. We could have
the Brave and Undaunted that do not believe that a helmet is
necessarily a mandatory accouterment for the bicyclist and "them" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 1:30:55 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:56:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2016 4:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you do need it you're really glad it's there.

"WHEN you need it?"

I've been an enthusiastic adult cyclist since 1972. Before that, I rode
nearly every day as a pre-teen and as a teenager. Somehow I never
needed one.

If a person is (say) regularly competing in track or criterium races,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is careening around the
woods on a mountain bike, testing his limits and breaking equipment,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is terminally clumsy, or so
terminally stupid that he's constantly pushing the limits of traction on
pavement, perhaps "when" is appropriate.

But I'm sure the vast majority of people who wear helmets will never
really need them. After all, bicycling existed in all its current forms
- even road racing through mountains - long before there were styrofoam
helmets. Contrary to current myths, there was never any great plague of
brain injury fatalities.

Perhaps we need a new category to distinguish cyclists. We could have
the Brave and Undaunted that do not believe that a helmet is
necessarily a mandatory accouterment for the bicyclist and "them" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Sometimes no matter how careful or experienced you are **** happens. At those times it's nice to have that extra insurance. Some people will wear a helmet just in case and others won't. Then there are the people who'll disparage and ridicule everyone who chooses to wear a helmet for any reason. Those people see the word "helmet" and immediately go into full attack mode.

Cheers

On 8/6/2016 1:30 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:56:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've been an enthusiastic adult cyclist since 1972. Before that, I rode
nearly every day as a pre-teen and as a teenager. Somehow I never
needed one.

If a person is (say) regularly competing in track or criterium races,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is careening around the
woods on a mountain bike, testing his limits and breaking equipment,
perhaps "when" is appropriate. If a person is terminally clumsy, or so
terminally stupid that he's constantly pushing the limits of traction on
pavement, perhaps "when" is appropriate.

But I'm sure the vast majority of people who wear helmets will never
really need them. After all, bicycling existed in all its current forms
- even road racing through mountains - long before there were styrofoam
helmets. Contrary to current myths, there was never any great plague of
brain injury fatalities.

Perhaps we need a new category to distinguish cyclists. We could have
the Brave and Undaunted that do not believe that a helmet is
necessarily a mandatory accouterment for the bicyclist and "them" :-)

For over 100 years, I guess all cyclists were Brave and Undaunted that
way, although they thought it was Just Normal. And there was never great
risk in thinking so.

In the 1970s, the product was developed and the marketing and fear
mongering started. After an incessant drumbeat of "Danger!" and
incessant lobbying and politicking, what was normal is now treated as
horrendous.

But only for bicyclists, not for pedestrians or motorists, who suffer
far more TBI numbers and impose far more costs on society.

Pedestrians even suffer more per mile traveled. Yet they don't get the
"Danger! Danger!" warnings, or Sir's troll posts to walking and running
groups.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2016-08-05 17:41, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:43:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 16:20, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:23:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-05 13:21, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: Snipped A
helmet can really save the day.

Like he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

A helmet is like insurance; you hope you never need it but when you
do need it you're really glad it's there.

I'm surprised at how many believe that if a person who takes a nasty
fall off a bicycle at speed, hits there helmet against the road a
number of times believe that had the person not been wearing a helmet
that the head would not have hit the pavement at all. Almost
inconceivable that such a belief exists. I remember watching Steve
Bauer on TV during a race when iirc correctly his front tire blew or
rolled off the rim and Steve went down very hard and rolled a few
times before attempting to get back on his feet. His momentum was so
great that he rolled again and you could actually hear his helmeted
head strike the pavement again. He was able to continue riding.
Helmets may or may not help in every crash but to say that had one
not been wearing a helmet would have resulted in the head not hitting
the pavement at all? Some are so anti-helmet they'll ignore all the
laws of physics.


Those are usually the head-in-the-sand guys. I have heard it live where
a guy in front of me hit a rut the wrong way, I stopped, he flew OTB,
landed on his back and then his helmet hit hard on a rock with a loud
*THWOCK* and he was ok. Except a new helmet had to be bought but those
$30 are much better than an ambulance ride and $500 co-pay per day in
the clinic, or worse.

I also saw the aftermath of a much harder crash where the styrofoam in
the helmet did a full job. It was compacted to less than 1/2 its normal
thickness at one area. Many folks diss helmets as "styrofoam
concoctions", blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their cars
one often finds ... styrofoam.

Well, I just went out and had a look at my wife's Honda Jazz. No
Styrofoam behind the bumpers. So given that you got that wrong one can
only speculate what else you get wrong.


The world's multitude of cars does not solely consist of Honda Jazz.
Cheap cars often don't have styrofoam absorber material. Better not get
into a crash in one.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/foam-b...rber-9498.html
http://www.carparts.com/bumper-absorber

q.e.d.

Just like with helmets you are supposed to replace this styrofoam piece
after an accident where the bumper got hit.


What is the school yard chant? "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"?


You could have at least spent 10 seconds on a web search engine before
blurting out such nonsense and embarrassing yourself.


But you said, "blissfully unaware that behind the bumpers of their
cars one often finds ... Styrofoam."
^^^^^^^^^


So I did exactly what you seem to suggest and went and looked and no
Styrofoam. So what should I say? "Oh! There must be some Styrofoam
there somewhere, or maybe it fell off?" Or perhaps the more logical
thing, since there was never any Styrofoam there so the guy that told
me that there was is either incredibly stupid, or a liar?

And by the way, I didn't have to check the bumpers of my pickup as
I've had them off and no Styrofoam there either.


I have again underlined the salient word.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/