Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet - Page 2

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:Hyb*elFTq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:

> Quoting Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com>:
>>Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>Like, does the name Casartelli ring a bell?
>>He actually hit more of his face than his upper head but I agree...
>>Helmets-don't hurt, may help. What's so diffuclt to understand?
>
> Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
> torsional impacts.

Why you think something that dissapates and redistributes the point
stresses that will inevitably also be present in the non-torsional part of
the impact isn't a good thing?

Compare and contrast the maybe 1" difference, allowing for the obviously
different coefficient of friction of skin vs plastic along with the slip in
the helmet suspension, with the abrasions and non-rotational trauma
inflicted.

I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
minor bicycle falls; I know of nobody who has died from a twisted neck.

I also wish I had had a helmet on when I smashed my glass lens into my face
on a fall and took 8 stitches to put the eyebrow and other skin back in
place. It's nice to know you can duck and cover on a fall instead of
trying to keep your cranium off the ground.

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
<wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:


>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of
>minor bicycle falls;

How do you know that?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in
news:j4jhd15o09c5ld6etactbco72ilhftdvvq@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
> <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
>>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma
>>of minor bicycle falls;
>
> How do you know that?
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
>

Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
helmets, also.

In neither case did the victim go to the hospital, but decided just to
take a nap after the fall.

And, as usual, I suppose your experience in your person medical practice,
including all that trauma room experience during your internship and
residence, give you better insights?

Also, I suppose you were there and can vouch that my other example that
I'd be a few stitch marks to the better if I had been wearing my helmet
is ALSO false?

Or do you only consider the evidence you want to?

Must be a conspiracy. Go on wearing your aluminum skullcap.

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:08:38 -0400, wvantwiller
<wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:


>
>And, as usual, I suppose your experience in your person medical practice,
>including all that trauma room experience during your internship and
>residence, give you better insights?

I'm not the one making claims so I have no need to back anything up.

JT

PS -- unless the medical people you're talking about are comparing
people who fell and were uninjured, I don't see how they could come to
conclusions about helmets. Think about it.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

wvantwiller wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in
> news:j4jhd15o09c5ld6etactbco72ilhftdvvq@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
> > <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
> >>today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma
> >>of minor bicycle falls;
> >
> > How do you know that?
> >
> >
>
> Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
> trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
> helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
> helmets, also.

To put that in perspective: We had one poster here who told of his
doctor's evaluation. He was in a bike crash, went to the emergency
room and was being treated by the ER doctor. He was not wearing a
helmet when he crashed.

The doctor asked him if he had been wearing a helmet. Not wanting to
hear a lecture, he lied and said "Yes."

The doctor told him "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."

Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that poster. If he's still
hanging around, perhaps he'll chime in.


Oh, and there's little reason to think a newer generation helmet is
more protective than an older one. If anything, the older ones
probably had more impact protection. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

- Frank Krygowski

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
> <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
>>>torsional impacts.
>
>
>>Why you think something that dissapates and redistributes the point
>>stresses that will inevitably also be present in the non-torsional part of
>>the impact isn't a good thing?
>
>
> But there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
> increasing helmet use, so obviously what goes on after the crash is
> only part of the story.
>

I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them
from harm.

The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
useless in all cases, and fight against them.

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

W

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:56:21 -0400, the person
> known to the court as The Wogster <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> made a
> statement (<ue9Ce.19439$6e3.864584@news20.bellglobal.com> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
>>helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
>>they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them
>
>>from harm.
>
> Seems fair to me :-)
>
>
>>The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
>>life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
>>useless in all cases, and fight against them.
>
>
> Really? Since I don't actually know of anybody in any anti-helmet
> lobby, I couldn't say, but I'd be intrigued to know what you would
> consider a realistic estimate of the life-saving capabilities of
> helmets. I tend to go by the findings of the largest study of its
> kind, by Rodgers in 1988, which found no measurable effect on injuries
> and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality, which I'm
> quite happy to write off as an artifact.
>
> So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
> zero plus or minus blind luck.
>

Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
risks and chances.

There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.

1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.

2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
to good.

3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
helmet effect none.

4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
effect none.

Out of the 4, a helmet is only involved in one, and it could more often
then not, result in a broken neck as forces are transmitted by the
helmet to the skull, and then to the neck. Gee morgue or paraplegic
wheelchair (like Christopher Reeves), hmmmmm, given those two choices,
the morgue actually sounds better.

>>The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
>>but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
>>same riding style as if you don't have one.
>
>
> Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
> Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
> myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.

But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
why would you take more chances?

W

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

The Wogster wrote:
>
>
> Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
> don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
> reasons people take extra risks......

Helmet lobbyists do have a problem there. They typically want to
convince everyone that:

1) Bicycling without a helmet is really dangerous - so dangerous that
you should NEVER bike without a helmet!!!

2) Helmets are VERY, VERY protective. Even though their certification
standards are so low, they still prevent almost 100% of head injuries -
specifically, 85%. It's such a simple way to remove almost all of that
terrible danger!!!

3) There is nothing you can do that's more important for bike safety
than wearing a helmet!!!

The problem is, they've touted the incredible protection so long that
now, many riders feel incredibly protected, and behave accordingly.

What can they do? Start saying "Um, wait, we didn't mean they protect
you THAT well." If they start getting specific and giving the public
real certification numbers and real population results of helmet use,
people will see helmets are about as effective as lucky rabbits feet.

The current trend seems to be to (finally) add some other safety advice
onto the helmet propaganda, while still claiming helmets are the most
important step... more important than, say, lights at night, riding on
the proper side of the road, etc.

I note, though, that in the US, the push for MHLs seems to have slowed
somewhat. There are still individual communities being deluded into
enacting laws, but the enactment of state laws has slowed to a trickle.
Perhaps this is because obesity and lack of exercise are getting much
more attention, and those problems argue against discouraging cylcing.

Well, we can hope - or pretend - that's the case.

I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.

- Frank Krygowski

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
> bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
> enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
> helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.
>

In the last 40,000 kilometres of riding, I have had three crashes, one
resulted in a little road rash, the other two had no injuries. Most of
those kilometres are without a Magical Foam Hat, including the times of
the three crashes.

If bike riders want to lobby for anything, it should be fair use of
publicly supported roadways. Wider lanes without side to side speed
bumps, fewer nonsense all way stop signs, bike indicators and lanes
where they make sense, not just where city planners can make politicians
look good, by adding them where they are not truly needed.

A bike indicator would be where bikes need to deviate from the norm, for
example an overhead sign that indicates a highway entrance ramp might
also have a bike with an arrow over the centre or left lane. This does
two things, one it shows bikes where to go, but also indicates to cagers
that bikes may be in the centre or left lane and may be crossing the
right lane to get there.

Signs where bike roads intersect with other roads, I see nothing wrong
with a sign that says hidden intersection with a bike on it, to indicate
that it's where bike roads cross other roads.

W

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote in message
news:tvfhd1trprcn1j97rmbc6nhbco2lgtd5us@4ax.com...
>
> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!

No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Per The Wogster:
>There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.
>
>1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
>nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.
>
>2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
>while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
>to good.
>
>3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
>helmet effect none.
>
>4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
>effect none.

5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.

Been there, done that. The several-inch-high pyramid shaped outcropping that
was a few inches from where the side of my melon slapped the ground completed my
little attitude adjustment.
--
PeteCresswell

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
> riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
> a recumbent bike, where it is small.

I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.

(Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune!
;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:8r2kd1tn3b4diunde6egjgtngpsl74a67o@4ax.com...
>
>>> Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many
>>> years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead!
>
>>No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled.
>
> Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was
> wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured.

Well, you must be athletic and know how to fall. It's good you're OK. You
can take a joke too -- good on ya.

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

<frkrygow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121571527.487167.163590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while
>> riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or
>> a recumbent bike, where it is small.
>
> I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear
> helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof
> that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic.
>
> (Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune!

Are you pretending that it's hard to crash a recumbent trike? Ever changed
direction in one unexpectedly due to "brake steering" at speed? They aren't
as stable as they look, and it's easy to become complacent. A LWB recumbent
bicycle also has some weight-distribution issues as to front and back wheel
which also predispose to occasional lack of control. Granted, it's not as
far to fall as from a diamond-frame, but some of these things do get up to a
respectable speed.

If a person chooses not to wear a helmet, it's none of my business.
Apparently you make it your business to question the judgment of anyone who
DOES choose to wear a helmet by attacking their choice as illogical or
susceptible to fashion. Strange bias, that.