fatal kiddie path incident

https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 7/22/2019 5:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?


It's two meters of smooth asphalt, cleverly landscaped with
undulations both side to side and up and down with plenty of
vegetation = crappy sight lines. Like many cyclists, she
apparently felt that the stop sign at a once-bucolic country
lane (now a suburban shortcut to the main highway) was
merely advisory. It's tragic but unlikely to have been
mitigated by any sort of hat.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:32:02 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/22/2019 5:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?


It's two meters of smooth asphalt, cleverly landscaped with
undulations both side to side and up and down with plenty of
vegetation = crappy sight lines. Like many cyclists, she
apparently felt that the stop sign at a once-bucolic country
lane (now a suburban shortcut to the main highway) was
merely advisory. It's tragic but unlikely to have been
mitigated by any sort of hat.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I don't know about this case but I find it interesting when a bicyclist dies and the says they were or were not wearing a helmet but then fail to mention that #1 the head never impacted the road or vehicle and that 32 death was due to massive internal injuries.

There is a rail-trail in Waterloo Region (Ontario, Canada) that runs about 78 kms from Cambridge to Hamilton. There are a few road crossings. I've seen bicyclist basically blow though some of those crossings and very nearly get hit. There too, often t he sight line to the road from the trail is very poor. Ditto for all t he stupid roundabouts in this region that have lousy sight lines and pedestrian crossing located right where vehicles accelerate to leave the roundabout.

Too bad she was killed.

Cheers

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:32:02 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/22/2019 5:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?


It's two meters of smooth asphalt, cleverly landscaped with
undulations both side to side and up and down with plenty of
vegetation = crappy sight lines. Like many cyclists, she
apparently felt that the stop sign at a once-bucolic country
lane (now a suburban shortcut to the main highway) was
merely advisory. It's tragic but unlikely to have been
mitigated by any sort of hat.

We had one of those near here a few years ago. I didn't know the victim, but I
have a few friends (including a bike shop owner) who knew him well.

He used the rural rail-trail for "training rides" on his road bike, and was
well known for blowing the stop signs on the roads that only rarely had traffic.
Until the day that one of them did.

And of course, he did always wear the full cyclist uniform, including the
helmet.

We occasionally ride that rail trail. There are a couple road crossings that
are terrible. One is at an extreme angle, probably about 30 degrees. Even if
I come to a complete stop, it's difficult to see back over my shoulder. At
another crossing, fast traffic pops into sight coming up from a dip in the
road. There's just enough time to make it across the road if we've started when the car appears; but if a person should bobble the start, there could be trouble.

BTW, our club has asked for improvements from both the park district that owns
the trail and the county that owns the relevant roads. Of course, nothing has
or will be done.

- Frank Krygowski

On 23/07/2019 00:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?

No, it's an implication that Ford Escapes work better than helmets :-)

"The driver of the Ford Escape was uninjured".

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 1:16:29 AM UTC-4, Tosspot wrote:
On 23/07/2019 00:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?

No, it's an implication that Ford Escapes work better than helmets :-)

"The driver of the Ford Escape was uninjured".

One of our club's top mileage cyclists was injured on a "kiddie path" about a
week ago. The path has a crushed limestone surface. Apparently she swerved to
miss a bollard, went off the edge of the trail and crashed. She got a
concussion, bad enough that she didn't remember what happened, didn't remember
her name, was taken to ER etc. (but is apparently fine now).

I'm sure that many club members are saying "See? If she didn't have her helmet
she'd have been worse!" But: It's now known that cyclist concussions have risen
over 60% since helmets have become popular. And helmet promoters are now saying
that helmets can't be effective against concussions - that they're really to
protect against other injuries.

Given the failure of helmets, perhaps this rider would have been better off
never leaving the "safety" of her car?

- Frank Krygowski

On 23/07/2019 15:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 1:16:29 AM UTC-4, Tosspot wrote:
On 23/07/2019 00:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558



That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing
a helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist
:-?

No, it's an implication that Ford Escapes work better than helmets
:-)

"The driver of the Ford Escape was uninjured".

One of our club's top mileage cyclists was injured on a "kiddie path"
about a week ago. The path has a crushed limestone surface.
Apparently she swerved to miss a bollard, went off the edge of the
trail and crashed. She got a concussion, bad enough that she didn't
remember what happened, didn't remember her name, was taken to ER
etc. (but is apparently fine now).

I'm sure that many club members are saying "See? If she didn't have
her helmet she'd have been worse!" But: It's now known that cyclist
concussions have risen over 60% since helmets have become popular.
And helmet promoters are now saying that helmets can't be effective
against concussions - that they're really to protect against other
injuries.

Given the failure of helmets, perhaps this rider would have been
better off never leaving the "safety" of her car?

This exactly my gripe, if you think they are effective, then you'd use
one for walking! Take a look at what the downhillers are wearing these
days, they are closer and closer to a motorbike helmet, which might
actually work.

https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surg...cycle-helmets/

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:16:26 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 23/07/2019 00:38, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:24:59 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/07/2019 15:04, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/med...ona/1097947558

That is brilliant reporting. Made me chuckle.

Yes, "Officials say the bicyclist was wearing a helmet and was
pronounced dead at the scene". As opposed to the frequently read
account that "the cyclist was pronounced dead and was not wearing a
helmet".

Is this an implication that helmets do not protect the cyclist :-?

No, it's an implication that Ford Escapes work better than helmets :-)

"The driver of the Ford Escape was uninjured".

True :-) So, accordingly if we outlaw all bicycles and allow only Ford
motor vehicles on U.S. highways everybody will be SAFE!

Ain't English wonderful!

Sort of along the same lines I read in the news that Berkeley has
outlawed all sexually specific words, such as "man" so "Manmade" or
"mankind", or "Manned" or "manning" are no longer words. I'm not sure
what they will do with public toilets, perhaps "Their's". Or "come one
come all, every one welcome :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.