Sad helmet incident

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:19:46 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:44:42 -0800, sms wrote:

On 1/16/2020 9:05 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

Very sad.

I know that the helmet instructions warn parents to not have the child
wear the helmet when not riding. This needs to be explained to children
that are on their own riding their bikes. The helmet comes off when they
get off the bike.

The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute warns about this as well
https://helmets.org/playgrou.htm.

Shrug, how much nanny state and helicopter parenting do you want.
If you want the kids to wear helmets, then you let them wear a helmet
when they want to.

The whole problem is greatly exaggerated, especially by click bait media
with the shlock horror reports of iindividual kids dieing. the risk of
strangulation by bicycle helmet is a minor minor chance in their life,
especially when we repeately see kids dieing from incompetent/gross
overworked medical professionals working in corruptly run medical
facilities. Locally we loose more kids from undiagnosed diseases each
year than we do from helmet strangulation in a decade. Actually, I don't
think we've ever had one.

See: https://helmets.org/playgrou.htm
Apparently it does occur, in rare cases.

But I find it interesting that "safety" seems to have varius meanings.
For example, one individual feels that a helmet will protect him but
rides in a manner that over the years has resulted in crashes and
broken bones. One can only speculate whether, as the helmet obviously
has not prevented bones breaking, is it is possible to ride in such a
manner to preventing broken bones?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 12:31:22 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:05:06 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

Perhaps we should all try a simple experiment. Throw a rope over an
overhead tree branch or roof beam. Attach the other end of the rope
to your bicycle helmet. Take up the rope slack by bending your knees.
No need to lift your feed off the ground as you're likely to strangle
yourself, break your neck, or hyperextend some muscles.

While the chin strap is under tension, try to release the chin strap
clip (also known as a "quick release buckle").
https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+release+buckle&tbm=isch
I just tried it on my (Giro Indicator G151X) helmet, with only a few
kg of tension, and couldn't release the chin strap (quickly or
otherwise). The harpoon shaped clips are designed to hold under
tension.

The buckle on my spare helmet did something unexpected. If I only
pushed one of the two buttons on each side, the quick release would
jam. Squeezing the remaining button did not release the buckle. In
order to release it, I had to push the buckle back together, and then
push BOTH buttons at the same time, in order to convince the buckle to
release. I doubt if a four year old could manage that. My Giro
helmet didn't jam, but did require quite a bit of force to squeeze one
or both buttons to release the buckle.

In my never humble opinion, it would not be difficult to redesign the
common "quick release buckle" so that it would release under tension
or possibly when an added release cord and D-ring is pulled.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


I'd be hesitant about a self-releasing helmet buckle. One can easily imagine a whole variety of opportunities for Murphy to prove his Law.

Andre Jute
Try it first on those helmets Franki-boy is trying to make pedestrians wear

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 2:56:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:02:26 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:


snip

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

-- Jay Beattie.

All true enough which leads to the question of why only a helmet?
After all while wearing gloves reduce the possibility of scratched and
torn hands, a proper jacket would prevent much "road rash" and
possibly broken bones - there is a reason that motorcycle guys wear
heavy leather.

And, it might be noted, that not only are protective helmets available
for bicyclists but armored clothing is also available Why the emphasis
on helmets while ignoring other protective clothing ?

https://www.jensonusa.com/Torso-Armor
https://www.allsportprotection.com/M...Armor_s/38.htm

And, added to the safety of the rider think how much more "macho" one
would look with full body armor and protective helmet.

A helmet is a simple head covering with proven benefits TO ME. Its easy, lightweight and has no effect on my mobility. It is no more intrusive to me than wearing gloves. YMMV. Armor is for DH events where falls can be catastrophic and involve likely penetrating objects known as rocks. I'm not doing this on my rides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu8bhkoMlhI If I were, I'd wear a full face helmet and armor.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 5:02:29 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/18/2020 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 19:07:56 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 8:38:25 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 19:31:22 UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:05:06 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

Perhaps we should all try a simple experiment. Throw a rope over an
overhead tree branch or roof beam. Attach the other end of the rope
to your bicycle helmet. Take up the rope slack by bending your knees.
No need to lift your feed off the ground as you're likely to strangle
yourself, break your neck, or hyperextend some muscles.

While the chin strap is under tension, try to release the chin strap
clip (also known as a "quick release buckle").
https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+release+buckle&tbm=isch
I just tried it on my (Giro Indicator G151X) helmet, with only a few
kg of tension, and couldn't release the chin strap (quickly or
otherwise). The harpoon shaped clips are designed to hold under
tension.

The buckle on my spare helmet did something unexpected. If I only
pushed one of the two buttons on each side, the quick release would
jam. Squeezing the remaining button did not release the buckle. In
order to release it, I had to push the buckle back together, and then
push BOTH buttons at the same time, in order to convince the buckle to
release. I doubt if a four year old could manage that. My Giro
helmet didn't jam, but did require quite a bit of force to squeeze one
or both buttons to release the buckle.

In my never humble opinion, it would not be difficult to redesign the
common "quick release buckle" so that it would release under tension
or possibly when an added release cord and D-ring is pulled.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The trick would be designing the release so that it stays attached in an accident yet releases if the pressure on it stays beyond a certain time.

I have a friend who was pulled off his MTB whilst riding off-road, when a branch snagged in one of his helmet vent holes. Fortunately, other than being a bit stunned o=upon impact with the trail he was okay.

I wonder how many injuries are caused by a helmet strap not releasing when the helmet is snagged by something? I think it would be filed under "freak accident".

A very good friend of mine was once a rather rabid helmet promoter.
She actually worked in a position where helmet promotion was one of
her main duties. This was back in the early 1990s, not long after the
terribly constructed (or perhaps dishonest) Thompson & Rivara paper
had been published.

She said to me "85%, Frank! 85% benefit! And it's so simple!"

Turns out the benefit is not anywhere close to 85%. And the more you
study the details, the more you realize it's not simple at all.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across something the other day that apparently that referenced
several sources as follows:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

Specific research into fatalities in Sheffield, UK (Kennedy, 1996) has
shown that even if head injuries were eliminated completely, at least
50% of cyclist deaths would still occur. Most fatalities involve
multiple injuries and head injury is not the sole cause of death. The
experience of a solicitor specialising in cyclist injuries (BHRF,
1173) supports the view that deaths solely due to head injury are
unusual.

A study of cyclist crashes in Brisbane, Australia concluded that
helmets would prevent very few fatalities (Corner, Whitney, O'Rourke
and Morgan, 1987). All deaths were caused through collisions between a
bicycle and a motor vehicle. For 13 of the 14 cyclists who died, there
was no indication that a helmet might have made any difference.

In inner London, 58% of cyclist fatalities were caused by collisions
with heavy good vehicles, as were 30% of those in outer London
(Gilbert and McCarthy,1994). The idea that a lightweight polystyrene
helmet could be of significant benefit in such circumstances is
unrealistic...

There are a number of other references in the article, one of which
titled "Cyclist injury data before and after helmet law in Western
Australia" demonstrating that hospital admissions, referenced to the
number of cyclists, actually rose with the advent of the mandantory
helmet law.

There's plenty of data showing that the massive uptake in bike helmets
hasn't caused a detectable reduction in fatalities. That means that that
thousands of people who were promoting helmets as absolutely necessary
life savers were wrong. It also means that the vast majority of the
countless "my helmet saved my life" stories must be wrong. They're not
dishonest; they're just wrong.

There's also data showing that bike helmets haven't reduced cyclist's
traumatic brain injuries. Bicyclist concussions have gone up, way up,
over the last decade just as helmet use continued to rise.

But that hasn't stopped the helmet promotion. Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tom Sherman used to make the ineffably dim argument that by wearing a helmet I am sending the wrong signal to the forces of oppression. Frank-boy, equally un-self-aware, makes the even dimmer argument that because he doesn't see the point of a helmet, no one else should wear one either. What a counterproductive ******!

Personally, I take the view that avoiding the pain and discomfort of anything in the spectrum from sunburn to road rash to stitches to concussion to plastic surgery on my face is well worth upsetting every Anti-Helmet Zealot ever born. Screw these worthless street corner bullies.

Andre Jute
March in the Hedonist Parade!

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 5:02:05 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 5:02:29 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/18/2020 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 19:07:56 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 8:38:25 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 19:31:22 UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:05:06 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Girl, 4, died after bike helmet got caught on branch:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51139789

She wasn't riding her bike at the time, but, being four years old, she
probably wasn't able to remove her own helmet.

Perhaps we should all try a simple experiment. Throw a rope over an
overhead tree branch or roof beam. Attach the other end of the rope
to your bicycle helmet. Take up the rope slack by bending your knees.
No need to lift your feed off the ground as you're likely to strangle
yourself, break your neck, or hyperextend some muscles.

While the chin strap is under tension, try to release the chin strap
clip (also known as a "quick release buckle").
https://www.google.com/search?q=quick+release+buckle&tbm=isch
I just tried it on my (Giro Indicator G151X) helmet, with only a few
kg of tension, and couldn't release the chin strap (quickly or
otherwise). The harpoon shaped clips are designed to hold under
tension.

The buckle on my spare helmet did something unexpected. If I only
pushed one of the two buttons on each side, the quick release would
jam. Squeezing the remaining button did not release the buckle. In
order to release it, I had to push the buckle back together, and then
push BOTH buttons at the same time, in order to convince the buckle to
release. I doubt if a four year old could manage that. My Giro
helmet didn't jam, but did require quite a bit of force to squeeze one
or both buttons to release the buckle.

In my never humble opinion, it would not be difficult to redesign the
common "quick release buckle" so that it would release under tension
or possibly when an added release cord and D-ring is pulled.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The trick would be designing the release so that it stays attached in an accident yet releases if the pressure on it stays beyond a certain time.

I have a friend who was pulled off his MTB whilst riding off-road, when a branch snagged in one of his helmet vent holes. Fortunately, other than being a bit stunned o=upon impact with the trail he was okay.

I wonder how many injuries are caused by a helmet strap not releasing when the helmet is snagged by something? I think it would be filed under "freak accident".

A very good friend of mine was once a rather rabid helmet promoter..
She actually worked in a position where helmet promotion was one of
her main duties. This was back in the early 1990s, not long after the
terribly constructed (or perhaps dishonest) Thompson & Rivara paper
had been published.

She said to me "85%, Frank! 85% benefit! And it's so simple!"

Turns out the benefit is not anywhere close to 85%. And the more you
study the details, the more you realize it's not simple at all.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across something the other day that apparently that referenced
several sources as follows:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

Specific research into fatalities in Sheffield, UK (Kennedy, 1996) has
shown that even if head injuries were eliminated completely, at least
50% of cyclist deaths would still occur. Most fatalities involve
multiple injuries and head injury is not the sole cause of death. The
experience of a solicitor specialising in cyclist injuries (BHRF,
1173) supports the view that deaths solely due to head injury are
unusual.

A study of cyclist crashes in Brisbane, Australia concluded that
helmets would prevent very few fatalities (Corner, Whitney, O'Rourke
and Morgan, 1987). All deaths were caused through collisions between a
bicycle and a motor vehicle. For 13 of the 14 cyclists who died, there
was no indication that a helmet might have made any difference.

In inner London, 58% of cyclist fatalities were caused by collisions
with heavy good vehicles, as were 30% of those in outer London
(Gilbert and McCarthy,1994). The idea that a lightweight polystyrene
helmet could be of significant benefit in such circumstances is
unrealistic...

There are a number of other references in the article, one of which
titled "Cyclist injury data before and after helmet law in Western
Australia" demonstrating that hospital admissions, referenced to the
number of cyclists, actually rose with the advent of the mandantory
helmet law.

There's plenty of data showing that the massive uptake in bike helmets
hasn't caused a detectable reduction in fatalities. That means that that
thousands of people who were promoting helmets as absolutely necessary
life savers were wrong. It also means that the vast majority of the
countless "my helmet saved my life" stories must be wrong. They're not
dishonest; they're just wrong.

There's also data showing that bike helmets haven't reduced cyclist's
traumatic brain injuries. Bicyclist concussions have gone up, way up,
over the last decade just as helmet use continued to rise.

But that hasn't stopped the helmet promotion. Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tom Sherman used to make the ineffably dim argument that by wearing a helmet I am sending the wrong signal to the forces of oppression. Frank-boy, equally un-self-aware, makes the even dimmer argument that because he doesn't see the point of a helmet, no one else should wear one either. What a counterproductive ******!

Not to speak ill of the departed (from this NG), but Tom rode one of these: https://www.bikejournal.com/images/skipwDSC00075.JPG I'd buy a helmet to cover my face. He also had a velomobile, which IS a full-body helmet.

Personally, I take the view that avoiding the pain and discomfort of anything in the spectrum from sunburn to road rash to stitches to concussion to plastic surgery on my face is well worth upsetting every Anti-Helmet Zealot ever born. Screw these worthless street corner bullies.

It's good to know what helmets will and won't prevent, and I'm not for mandatory helmet laws, but beyond that, I see it as a personal choice. The only thing I flatly reject is Frank's express or implicit argument that all accidents are preventable and the result of some personal failing. The perfect need no helmet.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 1/19/2020 3:27 PM, Bertrand wrote:
On 1/19/2020 11:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Bicyclist concussions have gone up, way up, over the last decade just
as helmet use continued to rise.

You've made that claim before. But we know that there have been huge
changes in the way concussions are diagnosed and reported, which have
led to concussions "going way up" in many sports, not just cycling.
Without a more careful analysis, we can't draw any credible conclusions
about helmet effectiveness from the increase in reported bicycle
concussions.

That's the most optimistic way of interpreting the results, if you're a
helmet promoter. But do you want the job of reporting back to a
legislator who had to be talked into a MHL? "Yes, I know we promised
helmets would reduce TBI. Yes, I know bicyclist TBI instead ROSE over
60%. But trust me, they're working! We're just _noticing_ TBI we never
noticed before! Honest!"

And of course there are other possibilities. More bicyclists could be
hitting their heads, because of course a helmet is a bigger target.
Every hit that would have missed a bare head must impart _some_ force to
the brain. Perhaps in a significant number of those, the effect of the
force is not mitigated by the helmet. This is most likely for grazing
impacts that tend to induce rotational acceleration of the head and
brain. It's now well known that A) those sudden rotational accelerations
cause far more TBI damage than linear decelerations; and B) Helmets are
certified only to decrease linear, not rotational decelerations.

There may also be increases in risk taking due to the protection myth.
I've certainly seen people on bikes doing risky things they would not do
without a helmet - things like fast, super-bumpy downhills; or mountain
bike jumps, "grabbing big air."

In any case, "Buy a bike helmet! They're associated with a 60% increase
in concussions!" doesn't make good ad copy. That's why you hear so
little about that bit of data.

I say if the needle is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, it's time
to re-examine strategy.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/19/2020 7:09 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:16:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But the most ludicrous example I saw was on a recreational trail we were
riding during a long bike tour. It was a hot summer day, and we came
across a woman wearing a big-brimmed straw hat, probably for sun
protection. On top of the crown of the straw hat was perched her bike
helmet.

She must have thought the magic force field extends a long way.

It is a political statement; the law says you must wear a helmet, so they
weara helmet.

This woman was an adult in Pennsylvania on a rail-trail with a crushed
limestone surface. There was no legal compulsion to wear a helmet.

Over here, the radiation from the sun can be your biggest
problem, so it make sense to weat a big shady hat.

One of my correspondents lives in OZ. She's made the same point. Given
the Australian government's emphasis on sun protection, I'm surprised OZ
doesn't have combination helmets/sun hats, certified to protect from
both "hazards." Or do they?

Hmm. Maybe these days they should also build in fire suppression...


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/19/2020 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine.

Thank you for permission to not wear a helmet! ;-) But I already had
that permission. (Well, except on a trip to Canada a few years ago.)

But that's not my big issue. Here's my big issue: "You're nuts if you
don't wear fluorescent clothing! And use glaring Daytime Running Lights!
And don't campaign for 'Protected' Bike Lanes! And don't use disc
brakes! And don't use clipless pedals! And wear gloves to protect your
hands if you fall! Oh, and where's your helmet?? You're crazy if you
don't do whatever you can to INCREASE YOUR SAFETY on a bike!"

My issue is the continual portrayal of ALL bicycling as a tremendously
risky activity - something being done not only by "safety" nuts, but by
avid bicyclists themselves. I think it's bad for bicyclists, it's bad
for bicycling as an activity, and it's bad for society as a whole. And
it offends me intellectually, because it's proven so obviously false by
so much data.

And it's particularly weird that avid bicyclists keep up the hand
wringing. I don't see the same behavior from fans of other similar
activities. Runners and joggers don't tell each other about helmets, and
don't put up with countless fan magazine articles about stuff they MUST
wear for safety. Pedestrians get occasional snarks for daring to walk
wearing dark clothing (which amazes me) but don't nag each other about
needing protection. Swimmers don't harp on the risk of drowning, and
they don't swim with mandatory water wings. Cross country skiers don't
warn other skiers with tales of freezing to death.

Why are so many bicyclists so willing to disparage bicycling?


Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

There's no giant conspiracy because you already have a helmet law in
Oregon. You're just not part of the group subject to it. But there's
constant social pressure to maintain the meme that "Of _course_ you must
wear a helmet!" And if you ride into Washington State, you may find
yourself in violation of a MHL.

Well, perhaps you wouldn't, because you wouldn't dare ride without a
helmet. But there are plenty of cyclists who could get prosecuted for
perfectly reasonable behavior.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/19/2020 5:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:39:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

Ah but the gloves are a lovely idea. The ones with the towel like
patches on the back especially as they allow one to wipe one's nose
without reaching for a handkerchief.

As an aside, of course one might wipe one's nose with a bare hand but
this leads to sticky hands and the nickname "Snotty".

Aren't sticky hands a safety benefit?? Why, if your hands slip on the
bars, you could die!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/19/2020 8:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:

It's good to know what helmets will and won't prevent, and I'm not for mandatory helmet laws, but beyond that, I see it as a personal choice.

It should be a personal choice, just as the choice to wear or not wear
any other style hat. What's weird is the constant drumming that it's
necessary, and anyone making a different choice is foolish. But only
while on a bicycle, not at any other time.

Our area was slick with ice the last few days. But all the people who
say "It's worth it on the bike to protect against bruises and scratches"
were out walking around (granted, mostly just to get to their cars) and
suffering the terrible, terrible risk of a head scratch with no layer of
styrofoam. Why is that?

Is the risk of injury while bicycling 8 mph on an empty rail trail
_really_ greater than the risk while walking across a glare ice parking
lot lubricated with a layer of rain water?

The only thing I flatly reject is Frank's express or implicit argument
that all accidents are preventable and the result of some personal
failing. The perfect need no helmet.

sigh I'll admit not _all_ accidents are preventable. There was no
reasonable way to predict that the front forks were going to suddenly
snap off our tandem when I hit a small bump. I can envision other
suddenly broken parts, or even flat tires, causing similar crashes. (But
I minimize those risks by not owning much extra-light stuff and
maintaining things pretty well.)

My wife got hit from behind by another cyclist once. The people in front
of my wife suddenly braked, my wife braked, but the woman behind her
wasn't paying attention. I don't think my wife could reasonably have
prevented that. I can envision other riders causing problems. (But I
minimize that risk by carefully choosing whom I ride near, and riding
fairly conservatively, especially in a group.)

But overcooking a turn in the wet? Crossing wheels with another rider?
Losing attention and riding off the edge of pavement while getting to a
water bottle? Not paying attention to an obviously slippery surface? Not
watching for bollards at the end of a bike path? Starting out with one's
wheel on the wrong side of one's toe overlap? Those things have taken
down people I know. I think they are all very, very preventable. They
haven't happened to me in nearly 50 years of adult riding. In fact, they
haven't happened to a lot of riders I know.

--
- Frank Krygowski