Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

The Wogster wrote:


Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
reasons people take extra risks......

Helmet lobbyists do have a problem there. They typically want to
convince everyone that:

1) Bicycling without a helmet is really dangerous - so dangerous that
you should NEVER bike without a helmet!!!

2) Helmets are VERY, VERY protective. Even though their certification
standards are so low, they still prevent almost 100% of head injuries -
specifically, 85%. It's such a simple way to remove almost all of that
terrible danger!!!

3) There is nothing you can do that's more important for bike safety
than wearing a helmet!!!

The problem is, they've touted the incredible protection so long that
now, many riders feel incredibly protected, and behave accordingly.

What can they do? Start saying "Um, wait, we didn't mean they protect
you THAT well." If they start getting specific and giving the public
real certification numbers and real population results of helmet use,
people will see helmets are about as effective as lucky rabbits feet.

The current trend seems to be to (finally) add some other safety advice
onto the helmet propaganda, while still claiming helmets are the most
important step... more important than, say, lights at night, riding on
the proper side of the road, etc.

I note, though, that in the US, the push for MHLs seems to have slowed
somewhat. There are still individual communities being deluded into
enacting laws, but the enactment of state laws has slowed to a trickle.
Perhaps this is because obesity and lack of exercise are getting much
more attention, and those problems argue against discouraging cylcing.

Well, we can hope - or pretend - that's the case.

I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.


In the last 40,000 kilometres of riding, I have had three crashes, one
resulted in a little road rash, the other two had no injuries. Most of
those kilometres are without a Magical Foam Hat, including the times of
the three crashes.

If bike riders want to lobby for anything, it should be fair use of
publicly supported roadways. Wider lanes without side to side speed
bumps, fewer nonsense all way stop signs, bike indicators and lanes
where they make sense, not just where city planners can make politicians
look good, by adding them where they are not truly needed.

A bike indicator would be where bikes need to deviate from the norm, for
example an overhead sign that indicates a highway entrance ramp might
also have a bike with an arrow over the centre or left lane. This does
two things, one it shows bikes where to go, but also indicates to cagers
that bikes may be in the centre or left lane and may be crossing the
right lane to get there.

Signs where bike roads intersect with other roads, I see nothing wrong
with a sign that says hidden intersection with a bike on it, to indicate
that it's where bike roads cross other roads.

W

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:53:42 -0700, the person
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.

I tend not to wear a magic hat, so make damn sure that doesn't happen
to me. I've lost the bike due to slippery conditions I think twice in
the last five years, once I'd slowed down in response to the slippery
road (ice) so the bike went down but I stayed standing, the other time
I took a roundabout too fast on a wet day and the bike went sideways;
I landed flat on my arse. Took out my best pair of bibtights, too. I
was not happy!

Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
a recumbent bike, where it is small.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"hell0.com (Alex B.)" wrote:

You guys can go on all you want citing statistically
insignificant personal events, but you are neither
convincing anyone, nor proving anything...


If you want to see statistics abused, visit the social sciences.

Misdirected questions yield true but meaningless statistics.


"Gazing at sheaves of statistics without 'prejudgment' is futile." --
Murray Rothbard


"Experience . . . brings out the impossibility of learning anything from
facts till they are examined and interpreted by reason; and teaches that
the most reckless and treacherous of all theorists is he who professes
to let facts and figures speak for themselves." -- Alfred Marshall

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!

No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.

Per The Wogster:
There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.

1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.

2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
to good.

3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
helmet effect none.

4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
effect none.

5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.

Been there, done that. The several-inch-high pyramid shaped outcropping that
was a few inches from where the side of my melon slapped the ground completed my
little attitude adjustment.
--
PeteCresswell

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
a recumbent bike, where it is small.

I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.

(Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune!
;-)

- Frank Krygowski

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:43:58 -0500, the person
known to the court as "Bob the Cow" made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!

No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.

Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!

No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.

Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.

Well, you must be athletic and know how to fall. It's good you're OK. You
can take a joke too -- good on ya.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
a recumbent bike, where it is small.

I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.

(Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune!

Are you pretending that it's hard to crash a recumbent trike? Ever changed
direction in one unexpectedly due to "brake steering" at speed? They aren't
as stable as they look, and it's easy to become complacent. A LWB recumbent
bicycle also has some weight-distribution issues as to front and back wheel
which also predispose to occasional lack of control. Granted, it's not as
far to fall as from a diamond-frame, but some of these things do get up to a
respectable speed.

If a person chooses not to wear a helmet, it's none of my business.
Apparently you make it your business to question the judgment of anyone who
DOES choose to wear a helmet by attacking their choice as illogical or
susceptible to fashion. Strange bias, that.