or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet - Page 3

post #31 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in
news:mb6id1hoirsamb8n28l95gk5dgbrg42uub@4ax.com:

> 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
> ****************************
>


http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
post #32 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:

> Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
> recumbent.


Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
those two sentences.

Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
rare than that?

I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).

Bill S.
post #33 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote in news:1121524744.872767.5110
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> 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
>
>


And your point is?

The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of injury
with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape without it,
probably more than just serious.

So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
unimportant?
post #34 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

wvantwiller wrote:

> The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of
> injury with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape
> without it, probably more than just serious.
>
> So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
> unimportant?


Because that's what anti-helmet zealots /want/ to believe.

HTH,

Bill "letting a little line out" S.
post #35 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:54:56 -0400, wvantwiller
<wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:

>
>The doctor OBVIOUSLY figured that if the crash cause this type of injury
>with a helmet, he would have been in much more serious shape without it,
>probably more than just serious.
>
>So just how does this support the contention that a helmet is
>unimportant?



The doctors are only seeing people who are injured. It's an odd
sampling of people, and not one to draw any general conclusions from.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #36 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

In article <8smld1hr0nf3tjtv8rko1n27o63l7vknms@4ax.com>,
Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:

> On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >.. Helmet manufacturers are
> >constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> >still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> >tests.

>
> Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
> but...
>
> I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
> less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
> is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.
>
> To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational
> examination, not hyperbole.
>
> I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
> I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
> would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
> risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
> bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
> difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
> It's quite literally not my problem.


Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
rides? How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
requirement? Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear
helmets? I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.
These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign
a waiver.

Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and
that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a
minority.

tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
purposes of government.

liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
compulsion or constraint in willing.

Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.

--
Michael Press
post #37 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
<rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:

>
>I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
>I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
>would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
>risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
>bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
>difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
>It's quite literally not my problem.


What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #38 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

<frkrygow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121622952.235122.184050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent.


Probably not. In my experience those who choose to ride rebumbents are
generally really old and feeble and too stupid to just hang onto the bike if
it tips over thereby protecting your head.
post #39 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

"Rich" <richa_colorado@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11dlle06vas6v8e@corp.supernews.com...
> frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
>> plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
>> their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
>> helmets? How is that logical?

>
> It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're older
> and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding with a
> helmet.


So instead of teaching them to ride correctly you feel it's more important
to teach them they're likely to get hurt and they should wear body
armor..........

Bet that makes them squeel with delight and frenzy to ride.
post #40 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

John Forrest Tomlinson a écrit :
> 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?


Read what he said: Everyone knows that helmets can resuscitate the
dead.

-ilan
post #41 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Bill Sornson wrote:
> frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
> > riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
> > recumbent.

>
> Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
> those two sentences.
>
> Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
> rare than that?


Let's give an example.

Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half
million miles of riding.

Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury
per two million miles of recumbent riding.

>
> I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
> likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).


Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of
1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States -
Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the
Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a
"serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious"
was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a
bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was
called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches.

Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present
in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms.

To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes
and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the
"moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6%
were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half
million miles, on average.

IOW, vanishingly rare.

(You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit
half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to,
for you.)


Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious
head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me,
people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_
the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_
vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the
1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free
world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s...

- Frank Krygowski
post #42 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Rich wrote:
> frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
> > plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
> > their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
> > helmets? How is that logical?

>
> It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
> older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
> with a helmet.


Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
helmets!

There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk.
http://www.thudguard.com/

Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day
one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed!

- Frank Krygowski
post #43 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, frkrygow@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >.. Helmet manufacturers are
> >constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
> >still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
> >tests.

>
> Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
> but...


First, the term "anti-helmet zealot" makes little sense. People who
argue as helmet skeptics are actually arguing for no change in the
norm. IOW, it's the people who promote helmets that want to change
others' habits - by rule or by law, if necessary. A person who says
"Wait, we can leave it as it is" can hardly be called a zealot!


> I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
> less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
> is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.


I'm not positive the helmet is mechanically responsible for providing
_less_ protection in many crashes. I'm quite confident that helmets
prevent many inconsequential injuries, just as cycling gloves probably
do. But there is the possibility of suffering a grazing blow to a
helmet that would be a complete miss without one - and such a grazing
blow may cause rotational acceleration of the head and brain tissue.

I think what's much more likely is this: People hear "85% reduction in
head injuries." They put on a helmet and feel nearly 100% protected
(since nobody seems aware that head injuries are actually a tiny
portion of cycling injuries, as uncommon as they are). They go out and
ride in a location, or manner, that they otherwise wouldn't. And their
increase in risk outstrips what's actually the very, very modest
protective capacity of the foam hat.

Keep in mind, _something_ must be going on. Again, the large
population data shows an increase in cycling head injuries as helmet
use goes up. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html for one mention
of that fact. Data from Australia, under universal mandatory helmet
laws, shows the same trend.


> I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
> I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
> would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
> risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
> bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
> difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
> It's quite literally not my problem.


And you're welcome to wear one. In fact, I invite you to extend your
logic beyond cycling! After all, when _do_ you "know what's going to
happen"? Surely you realize that cycling is not even on the map for
causing serious head injuries, right? Why not wear a helmet for all
activities that cause head injuries?

The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet
promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk. And of
course, they've never given you correct numbers in proper context to
prove that. Nor have you looked for them. You've believed the hype,
so you treat cycling as if it's a special danger.

If you didn't think cycling caused a special danger, you wouldn't think
a special hat was necessary.

- Frank Krygowski
post #44 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
> Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?
>


Good question. I know of one instance where a guy's helmet was stolen
in the middle of a bike tour.

He rode on. Are there people here who would actually stop riding?

- Frank Krygowski
post #45 of 663

Re: Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
> >Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

>
> Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
> based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
> irrelevant anyway.


I think it's relevant, even though you obviously don't want to answer.

It sounds to me like in at least some circumstances, you'd call for a
ride home. Am I wrong?

- Frank Krygowski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet