Helmet Bill in Colorado to be Signed by Governor Recuperating fromInjuries in a Bicycle Crash

Paul O wrote:

In fact, I can't seem to recall any of my riding buddies ever mentioning
that they have been hit by meteorites. However, all of my riding buddies
can you tell stories about their various falls, collisions, or close calls.


And they can tell you these experiences because they
wore helmets and survived the ordeals?

I grew up in the 50s and 60's when a *lot* of kids
rode bicycles everywhere. School, movies, friends
houses, hangouts.

Just about *everyone* crashed at some point or another.
A few fairly seriously.

However none of my peers that I can recall, ever died
from bicycle accidents. They died from drowning, one
from stepping on a rusty nail, a few from disease of
one sort or another, and most from car accidents.

Doesn't mean no one at that time ever died while on a
bicycle, but just wasn't common to my knowledge.

Now days, it seems the image portrayed is that you are
defying death to bike without a helmet, with some even
arguing you are being socially irresponsible for not
doing so.

It's a bike! I'll most likely skin my knee or leg or
at worst break a leg or collarbone. It really isn't
death defying!


SMH

smharding wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it
protected yes or no?" S.

Yes, if I know my head is going for a meeting with a
brick wall, I'd want it protected as much as possible.

This would be true if that meeting came about via
bicycle, motor vehicle, tripping on a sidewalk crack.

I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
good idea when flying, commercial or private.

The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
day level, "just in case".

My understanding is that a lot of activities we regard
as "safe" are in fact quite a bit more deadly than we
are willing to believe (motor vehicle operation for
example).

I just don't consider bicycling dangerous enough to
consider helmet use improving my odds of survival doing
it. A helmet probably does improve one's survival odds
*if* something happens; just not enough to be bothered
with as far as I'm concerned.

Yet just about every organized ride where I don't wear a
helmet (to test if the organizers *really* mean mandatory
use), I have fellow cyclists ride up to me asking me why
I don't "value my head".


SMH

So that's a yes then.

Smart choice.

BS

Bill Sornson wrote:

So that's a yes then.

Smart choice.

How many hours a day is your helmet on your head?

I guess it would be a dumb choice if you didn't have your
helmet on when you tripped over the rug in your house some
evening heading for the fridge for a glass of milk and
ended up in the emergency room.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

So that's a yes then.

Smart choice.

How many hours a day is your helmet on your head?

I guess it would be a dumb choice if you didn't have your
helmet on when you tripped over the rug in your house some
evening heading for the fridge for a glass of milk and
ended up in the emergency room.


SMH

What are you talking about?

On Mar 13, 1:24 pm, smharding wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or
no?" S.

Yes, if I know my head is going for a meeting with a
brick wall, I'd want it protected as much as possible.

This would be true if that meeting came about via
bicycle, motor vehicle, tripping on a sidewalk crack.

I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
good idea when flying, commercial or private.

If I was offered a parachute when boarding a plane, I think I'd take
it. Possibly the same for the fire suit and truck - depending on
circumstances. If I did either of those things as often as I ride
bike, I might even invest in my own gear.


The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
day level, "just in case".

And this question is answered by considering the cost of using said
protection against the potential benefit.


My understanding is that a lot of activities we regard
as "safe" are in fact quite a bit more deadly than we
are willing to believe (motor vehicle operation for
example).

I just don't consider bicycling dangerous enough to
consider helmet use improving my odds of survival doing
it. A helmet probably does improve one's survival odds
*if* something happens; just not enough to be bothered
with as far as I'm concerned.

Then in your estimation, the cost ("bother") exceeds the benefit.
That's fine. Sometimes, in some circumstances, I make the same
decision; but usually it goes the other way for me.


Yet just about every organized ride where I don't wear a
helmet (to test if the organizers *really* mean mandatory
use), I have fellow cyclists ride up to me asking me why
I don't "value my head".


They're being idiots. You've weighed the costs vs. benefits, and made
your own decision.

On Mar 13, 10:00*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:24 pm, smharding wrote:


The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
day level, "just in case".

And this question is answered by considering the cost of using said
protection against the potential benefit.

The problem now is with people's judgment about those variables.

People have now been led to believe that ordinary bike riding is
dangerous enough that they need all sorts of special protection - even
though it's far safer than being a pedestrian. And people have been
led to believe that the benefit of helmets is tremendous (85%!!!!!)
even though wide use of helmets hasn't affected head injury rates at
all.

And of course, people have been led to believe that every time they
put a dent in some soft styrofoam, it's saved their life, or brain, or
skull, or handsome looks.

I'll admit, the sales job has been brilliant. P.T. Barnum wasn't the
only one who knew a thing or two about suckers and selling.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:59:27 -0800 (PST), Peter Rathmann
wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:14*pm, Patrick Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:43:35 +0000, Phil W Lee

phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.

Of course, that's 0.
The gain ratio has been established as 20:1 in favour of encouraging
people to cycle, and helmets achieve the opposite.
It's even been calculated that every pound spent on cycling promotion
in the UK results in a saving of three pounds to the National Health
Service.

I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one. *My best
guess, playing (unscientifically) with lies, damned lies, and
statistics, was about 6:1 in favor of bicycles for death rates.

Hillman, Cycling: Towards Health and Safety, BMA, Oxford University
Press, 1992.

He looked at the number of person-years lost due to deaths from
cycling accidents vs. the number of person-years gained due to the
health benefits of cycling and came up with a ratio of about 20:1 in
favor of cycling. Don't have a cite for the cost savings by the NHS.

Much appreciated.

Pat

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:00:47 -0800 (PST), Dan O
wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:24 pm, smharding wrote:

I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
good idea when flying, commercial or private.

If I was offered a parachute when boarding a plane, I think I'd take
it. Possibly the same for the fire suit and truck - depending on
circumstances. If I did either of those things as often as I ride
bike, I might even invest in my own gear.

If I'm offered a parachute the next time I'm boarding a plane, I think
I'll turn around and leave the airport.

Seriously, the odds of injury or death from flying a commercial plane
are some of the lowest I know. If someone thinks the risk is high
enough for a particular flight that they need to offer me a parachute,
I'd suspect something was wrong with the plane or the weather, and I'd
rather not fly that day.

Pat

I wonder how long and dirty this one will get? ;-3)

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net