Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

And I carry a gun "precisely because I don't know what's going to happen..."

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.


"Werehatrack" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, wrote:

.. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
but...

I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.

To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational
examination, not hyperbole.

I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Thank you. Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. Demos = vulgar =
common = the 'people, hence "democraps"


"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Werehatrack wrote:

On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, wrote:

.. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
but...

I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.

To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational
examination, not hyperbole.

I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.

Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
rides? How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
requirement? Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear
helmets? I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.
These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign
a waiver.

Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and
that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a
minority.

tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
purposes of government.

liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
compulsion or constraint in willing.

Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.

--
Michael Press

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.

What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

wrote in message
oups.com...

Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent.

Probably not. In my experience those who choose to ride rebumbents are
generally really old and feeble and too stupid to just hang onto the bike if
it tips over thereby protecting your head.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
wrote:

How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
helmets? How is that logical?

It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're older
and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding with a
helmet.

So instead of teaching them to ride correctly you feel it's more important
to teach them they're likely to get hurt and they should wear body
armor..........

Bet that makes them squeel with delight and frenzy to ride.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
rides?

Liability.

How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
requirement?

By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with.

Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear
helmets?

Same answer.

I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.

What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it
succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability
to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the
cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data
is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people
who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and
regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that
you take it up with them.

These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign
a waiver.

A waiver will not prevent the filing of a wrongful injury or wrongful
death lawsuit, nor even reliably prevent it from proceeding and
prevailing in the majority of states, and the insurance companies that
underwrite the protection for the entities holding these events know
this.

Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and
that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a
minority.

In this area, helmet wearing is a practice that is far from being
adopted by the majority. Your point is poorly-founded.

tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
purposes of government.

Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable
purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You
may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of
tyranny obtains.

liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
compulsion or constraint in willing.

Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your
freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only
encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those
activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you
wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you
will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many
parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after
dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held
jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations.

Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.

Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your*
arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a
liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events,
you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are
legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have
difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's
an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to
assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance.

You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not,
that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you
can't accept that, it's *your* problem.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

John Forrest Tomlinson a =E9crit :
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
wrote:


I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
minor bicycle falls;

How do you know that?

Read what he said: Everyone knows that helmets can resuscitate the
dead.

-ilan

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
recumbent.

Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
those two sentences.

Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
rare than that?

Let's give an example.

Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half
million miles of riding.

Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury
per two million miles of recumbent riding.


I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).

Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of
1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States -
Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the
Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a
"serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious"
was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a
bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was
called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches.

Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present
in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms.

To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes
and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the
"moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6%
were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half
million miles, on average.

IOW, vanishingly rare.

(You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit
half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to,
for you.)


Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious
head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me,
people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_
the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_
vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the
1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free
world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s...

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.

What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is
*yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all
consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact
that they could.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Rich wrote:
wrote:

How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
helmets? How is that logical?

It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
with a helmet.

Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
helmets!

There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk.
http://www.thudguard.com/

Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day
one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed!

- Frank Krygowski