WIPEOUT!

On 2016-08-05 19:49, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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??)


They tend to walk at less than 5mph. Bikes are a tad faster.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/6/2016 10:57 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


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.

More bull**** from "Sir."

How many times has someone shouted at you for wearing a helmet? How
many times has someone tried to make wearing a helmet illegal? The
answers are doubtlessly "Zero," yet you pretend that you're being
attacked. The problem? You've never been capable of distinguishing
between informed differences of opinion and personal attack.

One young woman I know has a young son who recently learned to ride a
bike. She had him on a nearly empty MUP when a roadie blasted by at
speed, then stopped and yelled at her that her kid should be wearing a
helmet.

The woman was furious. Why should an anonymous jerk feel entitled to
chide her on her decision - which was, BTW, made rationally after
considering both sides of this issue?

The abuse, the mandates, the prohibitions all come from the helmeteers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2016-08-06 07:57, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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.


Like here. Look in still mode at 0:32min. The guy lands smack on his
head and the bike flies high above him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9_i9MEnMg

I had something similar happen a few weeks ago on the MTB. A Manzanita
twig hidden in the dust flipped up into the front spokes and locked the
front wheel. No mater how experienced a rider is or claims to be there
is nothing that can be done except trying to roll properly. Which in my
case wasn't easy because of big rocks around.

Of course this is guaranteed never to happen to Frank because of the
impenetrable cycling halo around him.


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.


Here in the Western US those have almost gone extinct. Out of hundreds
of riders I see on the (paved, not MTB turf) American River Bike Trail a
small handful, usually no more than five or so, rides sans helmet. Most
of those look like they are homeless, collecting cans and stuff.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:36:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:



Draw our own conclusions about a guy who posts pro-helmet stories here
hoping to generate an argument?

Internet discussion groups have a five-letter word for those guys.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Do you wear a helmet, Frank?

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-4, Michael wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:36:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:



Draw our own conclusions about a guy who posts pro-helmet stories here
hoping to generate an argument?

Internet discussion groups have a five-letter word for those guys.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Do you wear a helmet, Frank?

Frank is rabidly anti-helmet. You can post instances where a helmet mitigated serious injuries but Frank will say that you are exagerating or outright lying. Then he'll set up a strawman argument about some female having some incident.

There are cases where a helmet prevented serious injuries in a bicycling accident/crash but Frank will then tell you that you shouldn't be riding in any manner that might cause a crash. Frank does not know the definition of the word "accident". Quite frankly I don't beliwve that franks has nearly the bicycling experience he claims to have. I do believe that he's a very slow extremely/overly cautious rider with an agenda. His agenda is to disparage everyone who doesn't subscribe to his theories that wither bicycling helmets or bicycling ifrastructure can have any benefit to any bicyclists.

Look at Frank's posts over the years and you'll see that he very seldom says anything constructive in any arguments. Note to I said arguments because Frank does not discuss things he gives his opinions and damn those who dare disagree with him. I no longer read anything that Frank posts but will continue to post things that I feel will help bicyclists to be aware of some of the hazards that bicycling can have.

Cheers

On 8/6/2

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??)


They tend to walk at less than 5mph. Bikes are a tad faster.

And yet they suffer far more fatalities per year, and far more
fatalities per mile traveled. The percentage fatalities due to TBI are
very close to the same for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

So the idea that "Ooh, but bikes are faster" makes little sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 08:07:06 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
On 2016-08-05 19:49, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

They tend to walk at less than 5mph. Bikes are a tad faster.

This is anecdote, not data. I've been a licensed psychologist working
in nursing homes for 26 years. In that time I have treated two people
who had brain injuries suffered while riding a bike. I have treated
hundreds of people who suffered brain injuries in pedestrian accidents,
car accidents and assaults. I've seen dozens of people who got a brain
injury falling in their bathrooms. Interestingly I can only recall one
who had their brain injury while riding a motorcycle; tht poor guy was
really messed up all over his body, not just the TBI. I met him about
25 years after his crash. He was a funny guy with a great sense of
humor.

The State of Minnesota used to publish annual brain injury reports but I
haven't seen one of those in years. It was interesting to note a few
trends. There were far more brain injuries resulting while being inside
a motor vehicle, being struck by a motor vehicle, being shot in the head
by someone else, being shot in the head by oneself, falling, etc., than
from bicycling. The number of brain injuries from "off road" cycling,
whatever that meant, was much higher than the rate of brain injuries
from "on road" cycling- we're talking about 6 per year versus 10 per
year, IIRC, compared to 3-4 times higher for GSWs and about 30 times
higher for motor vehicle-related TBIs.

On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-06 07:57, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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.


Like here. Look in still mode at 0:32min. The guy lands smack on his
head and the bike flies high above him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9_i9MEnMg

I had something similar happen a few weeks ago on the MTB. A Manzanita
twig hidden in the dust flipped up into the front spokes and locked the
front wheel. No mater how experienced a rider is or claims to be there
is nothing that can be done except trying to roll properly. Which in my
case wasn't easy because of big rocks around.

Of course this is guaranteed never to happen to Frank because of the
impenetrable cycling halo around him.

That hasn't happened to me in over 40 years of avid adult riding, plus
near-daily riding as a kid. When should I have been terrified of that?
When would the "Danger!!!" warnings have been correct?

Perhaps watching the road or trail surface actually works?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/6/2016 11:36 AM, Michael wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:36:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:



Draw our own conclusions about a guy who posts pro-helmet stories here
hoping to generate an argument?

Internet discussion groups have a five-letter word for those guys.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Do you wear a helmet, Frank?

I wear one only when not doing so would lead to these sorts of
arguments. So I wear one on most club rides. I never wear one riding
alone, with just my wife, with my (grown) kids or with just a few other
friends.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/6/2016 11:52 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Quite frankly I don't beliwve that franks has nearly the bicycling experience he claims to have.

http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/...SummerRide.htm

--
- Frank Krygowski