|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another RLJ incident | Simon Mason | UK | 6 | September 30th 11 07:31 AM |
An Incident | Jorg Lueke | General | 28 | June 17th 08 04:51 PM |
First incident in ages | Chris Eilbeck | UK | 12 | September 22nd 06 07:52 PM |
Strange incident | Tom Crispin | UK | 7 | March 3rd 06 05:54 PM |
Another incident | MikeyOz | Australia | 18 | January 17th 06 08:48 AM |