Rider down - Turramurra, NSW, Wednesday

[Dave]

I meant to post this yesterday, but got a little sidetracked. Anyway,
I ducked out for a quick blat on the <mutter> road </mutter> yesterday -
my place to Mt Colah via Bobbin Head and back is a good 40km trip with a
couple of decent hills. About 6km in I saw a bank up of traffic, and as I
filtered through saw a bike down in the middle of the road. Not good.

Anyway, I stopped just as the assisting motorists helped the rider to the
side of the road, and stuck around to see if I could help. As best as can
be reconstructed the rider was signalling right and either dropped his
hand to the brake or hit a bump causing the front wheel to turn and him to
fly over the bars. Looks like he landed on head and shoulder, and the
shoulder was sitting at a nasty angle. A few scrapes elsewhere as well. He
was having some memory troubles, but knew his name. The ambos came fairly
quickly. Bike needed the front lever adjusted back into position, and
he'll need a new helmet since his was nicely squished at the front.

I doubt they'll see this, but who knows, so thanks to the people who
stopped, and best wishes to Peter (the rider) in making a quick and full
recovery.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." -- Robert Firth

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I meant to post this yesterday, but got a little sidetracked. Anyway,
> I ducked out for a quick blat on the <mutter> road </mutter> yesterday -
> my place to Mt Colah via Bobbin Head and back is a good 40km trip with a
> couple of decent hills. About 6km in I saw a bank up of traffic, and as I
> filtered through saw a bike down in the middle of the road. Not good.
>
> Anyway, I stopped just as the assisting motorists helped the rider to the
> side of the road, and stuck around to see if I could help. As best as can
> be reconstructed the rider was signalling right and either dropped his
> hand to the brake or hit a bump causing the front wheel to turn and him to
> fly over the bars. Looks like he landed on head and shoulder, and the
> shoulder was sitting at a nasty angle. A few scrapes elsewhere as well. He
> was having some memory troubles, but knew his name. The ambos came fairly
> quickly. Bike needed the front lever adjusted back into position, and
> he'll need a new helmet since his was nicely squished at the front.

Needs some way to signal without taking our hands off the handlebar...
Ummm.
--

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:31:37 GMT
Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Needs some way to signal without taking our hands off the handlebar...
> Ummm.

You can buy turnsignals for bicycles on ebay....

Zebee

 

[Dave]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:31:37 +0000, Artoi wrote:

> Needs some way to signal without taking our hands off the handlebar...
> Ummm.

Maybe. I got the impression from bike + kit that he hadn't been riding
that long, though he told the ambos that 50-80km was a decent ride so has
been going for a little while. Road bikes are a lot twitchier than MTBs and
kids' bikes, so it's easy to see someone coming unstuck while learning or
refreshing their skills. OTOH this bloke could have been riding roadies
forever and was simply riding a hack bike with an old helmet. I know some
of my bikes and the helmet I leave at the station look pretty dodgy! [1]

That said, it's fairly easy to ride one handed and even no-handed most of
the time, and sometimes you can have the front wheel kicked out even with
both hands on the bar - most of the time you'll recover it, but falling
off a bike happens. In this case I suspect it was simply a goof,
possibly exacerbated by a lack of experience.

[1] Some may extend this statement to the rider.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Forty-two" - Deep Thought

 

[PHATRS]

Dave wrote:
> I meant to post this yesterday, but got a little sidetracked. Anyway,
> I ducked out for a quick blat on the <mutter> road </mutter> yesterday -
> my place to Mt Colah via Bobbin Head and back is a good 40km trip with a
> couple of decent hills. About 6km in I saw a bank up of traffic, and as I
> filtered through saw a bike down in the middle of the road. Not good.
>
> Anyway, I stopped just as the assisting motorists helped the rider to the
> side of the road, and stuck around to see if I could help. As best as can
> be reconstructed the rider was signalling right and either dropped his
> hand to the brake or hit a bump causing the front wheel to turn and him to
> fly over the bars. Looks like he landed on head and shoulder, and the
> shoulder was sitting at a nasty angle. A few scrapes elsewhere as well. He
> was having some memory troubles, but knew his name. The ambos came fairly
> quickly. Bike needed the front lever adjusted back into position, and
> he'll need a new helmet since his was nicely squished at the front.
>
> I doubt they'll see this, but who knows, so thanks to the people who
> stopped, and best wishes to Peter (the rider) in making a quick and full
> recovery.
>

So would he have been any worse off without a helmet?

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

 

[Dave]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:05:03 +0000, PHATRS wrote:

> So would he have been any worse off without a helmet?

No, because now he'll need to fork out for a new one.If he hadn't been
wearing it he'd be financially better off.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Love wouldn't be blind if the braille wasn't so damned much fun.
- Armistead Maupin

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:05:03 +0000, PHATRS wrote:
>
> > So would he have been any worse off without a helmet?
>
> No, because now he'll need to fork out for a new one.If he hadn't been
> wearing it he'd be financially better off.

A dead rider is a lot cheaper to deal with from Medicare's point of view
too.
--

 

[Resound]

"Artoi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:05:03 +0000, PHATRS wrote:
>>
>> > So would he have been any worse off without a helmet?
>>
>> No, because now he'll need to fork out for a new one.If he hadn't been
>> wearing it he'd be financially better off.
>
> A dead rider is a lot cheaper to deal with from Medicare's point of view
> too.
> --

Dead people are surprisingly expensive. It's only the really nasty severe
injuries with lots of surgery and followup therapy and care that cost more.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Resound wrote:

> Dead people are surprisingly expensive.

How much would one cost? And is shipping included?

Theo

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Artoi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > A dead rider is a lot cheaper to deal with from Medicare's point of view
> > too.
>
> Dead people are surprisingly expensive.

Out of private funds, nothing to do with the government.

This argument is similar to restricting tobacco sales. The more people
smoke, the earlier their death will come after their retirement, the
less government will have to fork out in continuing health care and age
pension. At the same time, there'll be a solid tobacco tax revenue.
--

 

[Resound]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Resound wrote:
>
>> Dead people are surprisingly expensive.
>
> How much would one cost? And is shipping included?
>
> Theo
Much cheaper and easier than you might think to make your own. The store
bought ones are never as nice as fresh either.

 

[SteveA]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Artoi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > A dead rider is a lot cheaper to deal with from Medicare's point of view
> > too.
>
> Dead people are surprisingly expensive.

Out of private funds, nothing to do with the government.

This argument is similar to restricting tobacco sales. The more people
smoke, the earlier their death will come after their retirement, the
less government will have to fork out in continuing health care and age
pension. At the same time, there'll be a solid tobacco tax revenue.
--

Even though the buggers die earlier, their healthcare costs are much higher on average than non-smokers, all other things being equal. Smokers also are more likely to do other things that are bad for their health too. When smokers are treated in hospital, they are more likely to have co-morbidities (ie things wrong with them other than what they are admitted for).

SteveA