or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: I crash into religion - Page 4

post #46 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

On 17 May 2006 06:18:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Where does all this "telling" take place? I've never told anyone to
>wear a helmet; and no one has ever told me to wear a helmet.


[snip]

Dear Oz,

As I explained to you recently . . .

Here's something to warm your civil-liberty-loving heart. By
Massachusetts law, Sheldon Brown must do this:

Chapter 85, Section 11D.
Bicycle helmets; display of sign recommending use

Every person engaged in the retail business of selling or
renting bicycles shall display in an area conspicuous to
customers of such business a sign containing the following
statement: "It is highly recommended that a bicycle helmet
be worn while riding a bicycle.".

http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/mass.htm#C85S11D

It doesn't matter whether Sheldon does or doesn't recommend
it--he has to display a conspicuous sign in his bike shop
that "it is highly recommended." (So far, no law tells him
what signs to post on his web site.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
post #47 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <caIag.22220$43.21524@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com says...
>
> "Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ed4eda2119d5176989784@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <4cvqn6F17ssb3U2@individual.net>, junk@raven-family.com
> > says...
> > > Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > > > In article <mcupj3-j8f.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
> > > > simon@jasmine.org.uk says...
> > > >> In Britain, at any rate, you have a substantially higher risk of head
> > > >> injury walking one kilometer than cycling one kilometer. If you wear

> a
> > > >> helmet when cycling, why don't you wear one when walking?
> > > >>
> > > >> Genuine question.
> > > >>
> > > > Because the risk of head injury per trip is lower while walking?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually it's not. The risk of head injury while cycling is lower than
> > > while walking and a higher percentage of pedestrian hospital admission
> > > have head injuries than cyclists - for the UK at least.
> > >
> > > So what's your answer now?
> > >

> > If the trips are equidistant, the stats show that walking is less safe
> > than cycling. In my case, I don't go for 25 km walks very often, and
> > walk rather than cycle 400 m. to the village to buy groceries. So my
> > answer is that it depends on the risk of the trip, not the risk per km
> > or per hour. Those are just averages, and what matters is the risk per
> > trip.
> >

>
> So when you do go for 25km walks, you do wear a helmet?
>

The last time I went on a 25 km walk, there were no bicycle helmets, so
the question is moot.

Rick
post #48 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> If the trips are equidistant, the stats show that walking is less safe
> than cycling. In my case, I don't go for 25 km walks very often, and
> walk rather than cycle 400 m. to the village to buy groceries. So my
> answer is that it depends on the risk of the trip, not the risk per km
> or per hour. Those are just averages, and what matters is the risk per
> trip.
>


I don't know your lifestyle but, according to the National Statistics
Office, people in the UK walk on average 5 times as far in a year as
they cycle. So their likelihood of fatal or serious injury while
walking in a year is 7.5 times that while cycling.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #49 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Tony Raven wrote:

> In fact it seems to me that the reaction to these serious injuries is to
> suggest that they should be encouraged more strongly to wear the helmets
> they were already wearing. A consequences of not being able to see that
> they were injured despite wearing a helmet?


Can't see the wood for the trees? :-)
--
Chris

"From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down I was convulsed
with laughter. Some day I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx, "The Book of
Insults"
post #50 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <4d12tpF175fokU1@individual.net>, junk@raven-family.com
says...
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> >
> > If the trips are equidistant, the stats show that walking is less safe
> > than cycling. In my case, I don't go for 25 km walks very often, and
> > walk rather than cycle 400 m. to the village to buy groceries. So my
> > answer is that it depends on the risk of the trip, not the risk per km
> > or per hour. Those are just averages, and what matters is the risk per
> > trip.
> >

>
> I don't know your lifestyle but, according to the National Statistics
> Office, people in the UK walk on average 5 times as far in a year as
> they cycle. So their likelihood of fatal or serious injury while
> walking in a year is 7.5 times that while cycling.
>

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most reading here are unlike
the average annual cycling vs. walking in their countries of residence.
I certainly am. I don't know how far I walk annually, but it certainly
isn't as far as I cycle (at least 2500 km annually).

And the averages may be almost meaningless for individuals. For
example, I'd guess that a substantial proportion of the stats on head
injuries while walking were in collisions with cars, buses, trucks,
bicycles, etc. I don't work downtown, seldom walk in high traffic
areas, seldom cross busy streets, etc. My exposure to risk while
walking is very low, I'd estimate.

That brings me to a point that is usually overlooked in these helmet
threads.

Population stats are useful in deciding whether helmet use while cycling
should be made compulsory for the entire population. But that may be
the limit of their utility. They don't provide much evidence about
whether you or I (both experienced and frequent cyclists, I would guess)
would be safer or less safe wearing a helmet while cycling. We aren't
average, and the averages are only very gross approximations of the risk
each of us encounters. I suspect person-to-person variability in risk
would swamp the population averages. Consider two normal distributions
-- one for risk of head injuries while cycling with a helmet, one for
risk of head injuries while cycling without. Unless these two risk
distributions don't overlap a lot, your individual risk is probably much
more important than the population average.

Rick
post #51 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <caIag.22220$43.21524@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com says...
> >
> > So when you do go for 25km walks, you do wear a helmet?
> >

> The last time I went on a 25 km walk, there were no bicycle helmets, so
> the question is moot.


That sounds like a rather desparate evasion.

Let's rephrase the question: Should helmets be recommended for people
embarking on 25 km walks?

At present, they're obviously not. Browse any backpacking literature
to see. (And those deal with - horrors! - isolated areas with insecure
footing!)

Should helmets be recommended for people embarking on 25 km runs?

At present, they're obviously not. Look at photos of, say, the Boston
Marathon. I'm _sure_ its release form does not say "Helmets required."

Why such a disparity, unsupported by data?

- Frank Krygowski
post #52 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> >

> I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most reading here are unlike
> the average annual cycling vs. walking in their countries of residence.
> I certainly am. I don't know how far I walk annually, but it certainly
> isn't as far as I cycle (at least 2500 km annually).
>
> And the averages may be almost meaningless for individuals. ...
>
> That brings me to a point that is usually overlooked in these helmet
> threads.
>
> Population stats are useful in deciding whether helmet use while cycling
> should be made compulsory for the entire population. But that may be
> the limit of their utility.


Your point is well taken... although there is a well-known tendency for
every individual to believe that they are nothing like the average.
Like the surveys in which 85% of motorists claim they're "above
average" in driving skill.

Still, I can't recall _one_ helmet promotion that ever said "_If_ you
ride at high speeds, you should wear a helmet while doing so." Or
"_If_ you ride near traffic..." or "_If_ you do aggressive mountain
biking..."

Instead, all helmet promotions seem to say "ALWAYS wear a helmet!"
Some have gone so far as to claim that riding in your own neighborhood
is most dangerous (using fallacious reasoning based on "60% of all
accidents happen within a mile of home").

> They don't provide much evidence about
> whether you or I (both experienced and frequent cyclists, I would guess)
> would be safer or less safe wearing a helmet while cycling.


The "safer wearing a helmet" is only part of the issue. At some point,
we must remember that even if one were safer in a helmet, one could
also be adequately safe without a helmet.

Helmet promoters have devoted more than a decade of enertic propaganda
to making cycling sound very dangerous. It's false, and (to me) it's
the worst aspect of this travesty.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski
post #53 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:

>
> >> I crashed in a pot hole at night at about 18mph, went OTB, landed
> >> sqarely on my head, and then my shoulder, which separated at the AC.
> >> This was a non-dramatic, non-risk taking crash that resulted in a
> >> significant head strike. I would call it significant because some
> >> large portion of my weight (about 215lbs) was transmitted to my
> >> helmet which was resting against uneven and rock strewn pavement.
> >> Some portion of those rocks would have embedded in my scalp. I know
> >> this because some portion embedded in my face below the helmet line.
> >> I was stunned, and maybe even knocked out for a split second, but
> >> with that sort of deceleration, I wouldn't expect a helmet to help
> >> that much. I may have avoided a skull fracture, though. No one
> >> knows. I do know that I avoided trauma to my head based on the
> >> condition of the helmet.

>
> > A few years (hmph!) ago a shool friend was riding to the games
> > session. He went into a deep pothole, broke the forks on the bike and
> > obviously went over the bars. A helmet would have saved his life had
> > he been wearing one, but he walked away with a few grazes etc.
> >
> > Painful and unsightly but not life threatening injuries.

>
> Tale of two similar falls. One involved a "significant head strike"; the
> other apparently didn't.


So the grazes on his head were the result of hitting thin air?

> But somehow your friend's crash is the only
> illustrative one?

Where was that said? Merely pointing out that uncontroleld anecdote is
merely that.

> (BTW, Jay never claimed his accident was "life
> threatening".)


So? Neither did I.

> It's illustrative alright -- of your bias.


What bias? All I was doing was providing another anecdote. I provided
no interpretation beyond that which would have indicated that damamge
to a helmet would have been likely.

...d
post #54 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
>> > Because the risk of head injury per trip is lower while walking?

> >
> >

>
> ....and I don't walk down twisty descents at ~35-40mph?


And..
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> in a typical solo bike crash, the
> cyclists goes skidding or tumbling. But the cyclist's speed *toward
> the ground* is a lot less than 35mph. It's often not that different
> than a fall at low speed.


Ozark agreed

"Exactly."



Mike Sales
post #55 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <1147887422.839839.201590@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
frkrygow@gmail.com says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > In article <caIag.22220$43.21524@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> > jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com says...
> > >
> > > So when you do go for 25km walks, you do wear a helmet?
> > >

> > The last time I went on a 25 km walk, there were no bicycle helmets, so
> > the question is moot.

>
> That sounds like a rather desparate evasion.


Facts are not a desperate evasion.

You are applying population statistics to an individual, which is an
error in logic. We do not know the underlying risk distribution for
individuals in the population, nor do we know the underlying risk
variance. But I think we can all agree that the variance is probably
substantial -- we've all seen people who cycle/walk, etc. in ways that
put them at substantially higher risk of injury. For that reason, I
think it's an error to argue that the population stats support your
argument for individual cases.
>
> Let's rephrase the question: Should helmets be recommended for people
> embarking on 25 km walks?


That wasn't, and hasn't been, the point I was arguing.
>
> At present, they're obviously not. Browse any backpacking literature
> to see. (And those deal with - horrors! - isolated areas with insecure
> footing!)
>
> Should helmets be recommended for people embarking on 25 km runs?


I don't know. What is the risk for people who are fit enough to run 25
km? Is it the same as the underlying risk for the entire population?
Surely there's enough data available about head injuries during
competitions like the Boston Marathon that you don't have to rely on the
population statistics to make your point?
>
> At present, they're obviously not. Look at photos of, say, the Boston
> Marathon. I'm _sure_ its release form does not say "Helmets required."
>
> Why such a disparity, unsupported by data?
>

Is it your position that the whole population statistics hold for the
small, unusual subset of participants running the Boston Marathon? If
so, why?

Rick
post #56 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <1147888057.680054.56460@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
frkrygow@gmail.com says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> >
> > >

> > I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most reading here are unlike
> > the average annual cycling vs. walking in their countries of residence.
> > I certainly am. I don't know how far I walk annually, but it certainly
> > isn't as far as I cycle (at least 2500 km annually).
> >
> > And the averages may be almost meaningless for individuals. ...
> >
> > That brings me to a point that is usually overlooked in these helmet
> > threads.
> >
> > Population stats are useful in deciding whether helmet use while cycling
> > should be made compulsory for the entire population. But that may be
> > the limit of their utility.

>
> Your point is well taken... although there is a well-known tendency for
> every individual to believe that they are nothing like the average.
> Like the surveys in which 85% of motorists claim they're "above
> average" in driving skill.
>
> Still, I can't recall _one_ helmet promotion that ever said "_If_ you
> ride at high speeds, you should wear a helmet while doing so." Or
> "_If_ you ride near traffic..." or "_If_ you do aggressive mountain
> biking..."
>
> Instead, all helmet promotions seem to say "ALWAYS wear a helmet!"
> Some have gone so far as to claim that riding in your own neighborhood
> is most dangerous (using fallacious reasoning based on "60% of all
> accidents happen within a mile of home").
>
> > They don't provide much evidence about
> > whether you or I (both experienced and frequent cyclists, I would guess)
> > would be safer or less safe wearing a helmet while cycling.

>
> The "safer wearing a helmet" is only part of the issue. At some point,
> we must remember that even if one were safer in a helmet, one could
> also be adequately safe without a helmet.
>
> Helmet promoters have devoted more than a decade of enertic propaganda
> to making cycling sound very dangerous. It's false, and (to me) it's
> the worst aspect of this travesty.
>
> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>

I agree that cycling is not very dangerous. And I disagree with
mandatory helmet laws, at least for adults. I don't know about the
stats for children. What I've been saying on this thread and others is
that those who make the gross assumption that population stats tell us
that ANYONE who wears a helmet is increasing his risk of head injury are
misusing the data. It's ironic to see this argument coming from those
who accuse MHL proponents of using faulty data to support their crusade.

Rick
post #57 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

in message <4d12tpF175fokU1@individual.net>, Tony Raven
('junk@raven-family.com') wrote:

> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>>
>> If the trips are equidistant, the stats show that walking is less safe
>> than cycling. In my case, I don't go for 25 km walks very often, and
>> walk rather than cycle 400 m. to the village to buy groceries. So my
>> answer is that it depends on the risk of the trip, not the risk per km
>> or per hour. Those are just averages, and what matters is the risk
>> per trip.

>
> I don't know your lifestyle but, according to the National Statistics
> Office, people in the UK walk on average 5 times as far in a year as
> they cycle. So their likelihood of fatal or serious injury while
> walking in a year is 7.5 times that while cycling.


That's a bit bogus, Tony. Most people in the UK don't cycle at all. I
would guess most people on these groups cycle upwards of fifty miles a
week, and don't walk a tenth as much.

Taking the population as a whole, people walk more than cycle. But taking
the population who actually do cycle, I suspect they cycle more than
they walk.

Me? I'd almost certainly cycle 400 metres.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''
post #58 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

in message <1147881179.992136.285510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Jay
Beattie ('jbeattie@lindsayhart.com') wrote:

> When I have crashed going downhill, however, I have always
> landed first on some other part of my body (hip, shoulder, arm) with
> the side of my head hitting (if at all) on a bounce or a snap.


That's my experience, too. Knees, hips, elbows and shoulders get it. The
only time my head has hit the ground in such a fall is once - quite
recently - when I was wearing a helmet.

> I have
> no idea what would happen in an OTB fall down a fast hill --or a true
> wall impact.


I think I can help you there. The bike stops dead, and you keep going. At
the speed I was doing, you rotate pretty much around your hands on the
hoods (or on an MTB, probably the bars) and judging from the laceration
injuries I actually hit feet first before starting to tumble. There was
a small graze on my temple but I don't know what caused it. The fracture
to my spine appears to have been a hyperflexion injury - there was no
bruising to my back, and my mobile phone, which was in my back pocket
almost exactly over the point of injury, was undamaged.

Don't try this at home, folks. A month on your back in hospital followed
by three months in a back brace is not precisely enjoyable.

Interestingly, the Mavic Ksyrium Equipe front wheel, which took the whole
impact, is still perfectly true. The tyre burst and the rim was kinked,
but the wheel remained round and, after the rim was bashed back into
some rough semblance of shape at the roadside, ran true.

Lesson two: when you've had a crash and you're jumping with adrenaline,
and your friends say 'lie still and we'll call an ambulance', lie still
and let them call an ambulance. Getting back on your bike and riding
another mile isn't clever.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.
post #59 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <8YJag.22246$43.13900@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com says...
>
> "Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ed4f529c9669d02989786@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>
> > > > If the trips are equidistant, the stats show that walking is less safe
> > > > than cycling. In my case, I don't go for 25 km walks very often, and
> > > > walk rather than cycle 400 m. to the village to buy groceries. So my
> > > > answer is that it depends on the risk of the trip, not the risk per km
> > > > or per hour. Those are just averages, and what matters is the risk

> per
> > > > trip.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So when you do go for 25km walks, you do wear a helmet?
> > >

> > The last time I went on a 25 km walk, there were no bicycle helmets, so
> > the question is moot.
> >

>
> Suppose you were to go on a 25km walk tomorrow. Would you wear a helmet?
>

No. I don't believe the population statistics are representative of my
personal risk profile. Do you?

Rick
post #60 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> I agree that cycling is not very dangerous. And I disagree with
> mandatory helmet laws, at least for adults. I don't know about the
> stats for children.


The UK stats for children is that three times as many are murdered by
close friends or relatives compared with cycling accidents. Perhaps we
should have mandatory taking into care in the UK

> What I've been saying on this thread and others is
> that those who make the gross assumption that population stats tell us
> that ANYONE who wears a helmet is increasing his risk of head injury are
> misusing the data. It's ironic to see this argument coming from those
> who accuse MHL proponents of using faulty data to support their crusade.
>


The population stats tell you you are more likely to be increasing your
risk by wearing a helmet. Now you may be a very cautious rider which
means you will minimise the chance of you having an accident in the
first place but 90% of the deaths or serious injuries are caused by
being hit by a motor vehicle. Will your caution change the way the
driver drives and the speed and position of the impact? So in the vast
majority of accidents you will be no different from anyone else because
events are not in your control - if they were you would have avoided the
accident in the first place.

If you had an illness and the doctor offered you a pill that he said had
performed well in limited clinical trials but that recent studies had
shown that there was a worrying number of deaths in people on the pill
would you take the pill and say, "I'll be alright doc, I'm not other
people"?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion