Brandt on soldred/tied spoking

On 4/10/2015 3:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related
accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen
for
head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the
person
is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a
serious
injury(s).

Oh come on! Far more (and more serious) TBI events happen to both
motorists and pedestrians. When those appear in the ER, it's even more
likely to be for a serious injury (which I can explain later, if you
like). But despite that, nobody recommends helmets for those activities
and nobody asks about helmets for those activities.

It's not because helmets aren't as justifiable for motoring and walking.
By the numbers, they are more justifiable than for cycling. It's just
that it's not done, i.e. it's not fashionable to say "Drivers and
walkers need to take responsibility and stop making society pay for
their brain injuries."

(And no, it really doesn't make sense to say that bit about making
society pay for those folks either; but people still say it about
bicyclists, despite the overwhelmingly greater cost of motoring and
walking TBI.)


Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in
Canada --
who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who
have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds
and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Again: Oh, come on! Is it possible for a bicyclist to get a scratch on
the head and _not_ get a helmet lecture? Is it possible for a motorist
or pedestrian to _ever_ get a helmet lecture, even if he's nearly killed
by a head injury? The treatment of the groups is nowhere near
proportional to the actual TBI count or TBI risk.


Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for
sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm

OK, let's talk about that in detail.

Q: Why would bicycling be at or near the top in TBI _count_ for
"sports"? Would it have anything to do with the number of participants?

A: Definitely. There are _far_ more people participating in the "sport"
of bicycling than in soccer, basketball or other sports in which people
are actually moving (as opposed to, say, bowling or golf). I can give
you some numbers, if you really need them.

Q: Why am I putting parentheses around "sport"?

A: Because unlike soccer, basketball, football, bowling, golf and the
like, bicycling is no more a "sport" in the usual sense than is walking.
Only a very tiny percentage of bicyclists compete in any manner. The
vast majority use their bikes for low-exertion exercise, pleasant
recreation, and for transportation, just as people use walking.

Q: Why keep bringing up walking?

A: For one thing, it's probably the closest analogy to bicycling in the
world of "sport." Again, it's possible to walk competitively, but only
a tiny percentage of walkers do so - just as with bicycling.

More importantly, _if_ the "sport" of walking had been included in the
study, it would have eclipsed bicycling as a source of TBI. There are
FAR more walking TBI events than bicycling TBI events. And judging by
the Phillips report on TBI in Ireland
(http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf), pedestrians'
TBI would be far worse on average than bicyclists. See table 6-9, which
shows cyclists' TBI severity far below those of pedestrians, motorists
and motorcyclists.

Now if your paper had counted _only_ the bicycling TBI that occurred
during racing or training for racing, you might have an argument.
Except that if they did count only racing and training injuries,
bicycling wouldn't have gotten a mention.

And Jay, you mock it as a purported conspiracy. It's much more accurate
to describe it as a meme. People pay special attention to bicycling TBI
only because people pay special attention to bicycling TBI. It's not
justifiable on grounds of cost to society or risk to the individual.

It's a lot like paying attention to Kardashians - at least, I think it
is. (I know very little about Kardashians.) It probably got started by
some dedicated publicists working with significant financial incentive.
And they did their job well enough that it's not going to stop as long
as there's a critical mass of mini-minded fans.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 10:41:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/10/2015 4:16 PM, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the
ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive
and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be
sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to
have those areas well cleaned.

It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

I guess I'm an outlier again. I've had road rash once that I recall,
which means, since turning 18 (about 50 years ago). It was a patch
about 2 cm diameter on my knee. I was more upset that I tore my nice
(non-cycling-specific) jacket.

I do try hard to keep the tires between me and the ground.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You do live a charmed life Frank. Most of us also like to and try to keep the tires on the surface of what we are riding. However sometimes **** beyond our control happens and we go down.

Cheers

On 4/10/2015 10:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Q: Why would bicycling be at or near the top in TBI _count_ for
"sports"? Would it have anything to do with the number of participants?

A: Definitely. There are _far_ more people participating in the "sport"
of bicycling than in soccer, basketball or other sports in which people
are actually moving (as opposed to, say, bowling or golf). I can give
you some numbers, if you really need them.

Any numbers for equestrians? Seems that rather dangerous activity gets
a pass due to the participants mostly being from the upper crust of
society, eh?

(Same thing for trail damage of mountain bikers versus horses.)

--
T0m $herm@n

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Golf is a game, not a sport.

Golf is .......

hiking !

Hunting is ......

nature observation- psychological healing and walking with a deadly weapon

both have connections to helmet use age.

AHA !

stick that in your G suit

road rash has with deep regret descemded into a video game. hard to get to the meat of it...abrasive.

http://goo.gl/Aa0u5m


one of the basic skill in motocycle is developing road rash on one side and muffler blisters on the opposite.



https://www.google.com/search?site=i...ler+skin+burns

On 4/11/2015 12:02 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 10:41:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/10/2015 4:16 PM, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the
ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive
and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be
sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to
have those areas well cleaned.

It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

I guess I'm an outlier again. I've had road rash once that I recall,
which means, since turning 18 (about 50 years ago). It was a patch
about 2 cm diameter on my knee. I was more upset that I tore my nice
(non-cycling-specific) jacket.

I do try hard to keep the tires between me and the ground.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You do live a charmed life Frank. Most of us also like to and try to keep the tires on the surface of what we are riding. However sometimes **** beyond our control happens and we go down.

I am curious about how often other people crash, and what causes their
crashes.

I've had only two moving on-road crashes since getting an adult bike in
1972. One was a winter fall on a super-steep (now closed to traffic)
city street in the winter. Descending at walking speed, I turned to
avoid some glass and my front tire slid out on gravel. The other was
when the front forks suddenly broke off of our custom tandem at about 10
mph.

Playing around off-road on mountain bikes, etc. I've had some topples,
but no injuries. I'm _very_ careful about watching road surfaces, and
of course I ride roads as a legal vehicle operator.

So how do other people get in trouble?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:18:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/10/2015 3:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But is there any reason you use to justify fear mongering for such a
safe activity?

If a person is in the emergency room with injuries from a bicycling-related
accident, I think it is reasonable to ask about helmet use to (1) screen
for
head injury, and (2) gather data on helmet use. Keep in mind that the
person
is already in an emergency room for what he or she considers to be a
serious
injury(s).

Oh come on! Far more (and more serious) TBI events happen to both
motorists and pedestrians. When those appear in the ER, it's even more
likely to be for a serious injury (which I can explain later, if you
like). But despite that, nobody recommends helmets for those activities
and nobody asks about helmets for those activities.

It's not because helmets aren't as justifiable for motoring and walking.
By the numbers, they are more justifiable than for cycling. It's just
that it's not done, i.e. it's not fashionable to say "Drivers and
walkers need to take responsibility and stop making society pay for
their brain injuries."

(And no, it really doesn't make sense to say that bit about making
society pay for those folks either; but people still say it about
bicyclists, despite the overwhelmingly greater cost of motoring and
walking TBI.)


Most people do not go to the ER for road rash, but maybe that is SOP in
Canada --
who knows. Anyway, I don't think fear needs to be mongered to people who
have already been injured. It's not like they are ordering at McDonalds
and the counter-person asks if they wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Again: Oh, come on! Is it possible for a bicyclist to get a scratch on
the head and _not_ get a helmet lecture? Is it possible for a motorist
or pedestrian to _ever_ get a helmet lecture, even if he's nearly killed
by a head injury? The treatment of the groups is nowhere near
proportional to the actual TBI count or TBI.

Actually, if the person got a scratch on his or her head from falling on a bike, you would lecture him or her for falling -- and then someone might recommend a helmet -- particularly if the person were prone to falling.


Damn, this is a bummer. Bicycling is at the top of the list for
sports-related TBIs. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a1.htm

OK, let's talk about that in detail.

Q: Why would bicycling be at or near the top in TBI _count_ for
"sports"? Would it have anything to do with the number of participants?

A: Definitely. There are _far_ more people participating in the "sport"
of bicycling than in soccer, basketball or other sports in which people
are actually moving (as opposed to, say, bowling or golf). I can give
you some numbers, if you really need them.

Frank, you're more fun than going to the tide pool and poking the sea anemones. Here's another poke: http://floridacyclinglaw.com/images/...r_Cyclists.pdf

I would engage with you on this point, but my subcommittee of the Giant Conspiracy to Enslave Frank's Head is about to meet, and I have to go get the doughnuts.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/11/2015 11:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Frank, you're more fun than going to the tide pool and poking the sea anemones. Here's another poke:http://floridacyclinglaw.com/images/...r_Cyclists.pdf

I would engage with you on this point, but my subcommittee of the Giant Conspiracy to Enslave Frank's Head is about to meet, and I have to go get the doughnuts.

The Deceased and his Heirs

A Man died leaving a large estate and many sorrowful relations who
claimed it. After some years, when all but one had had judgment given
against them, that one was awarded the estate, which he asked his
Attorney to have appraised.

“There is nothing to appraise,� said the Attorney, pocketing his last fee.

“Then,� said the Successful Claimant, “what good has all this litigation
done me?�

“You have been a good client to me,� the Attorney replied, gathering up
his books and papers, “but I must say you betray a surprising ignorance
of the purpose of litigation.�

- from Fantastic Fables, by Ambrose Bierce

--
T0m $herm@n

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 5:02:16 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 10:41:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/10/2015 4:16 PM, Duane wrote:
On 10/04/2015 3:58 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

It's not SOP in Canada or Ontario (a province in Canada) to go to the
ER for road rash. I went because the roasd rash was fairly extensive
and in areas I could not reach to get the grit out of. I wanted to be
sure I didn't get complications fron some weird infection so went to
have those areas well cleaned.

It's just that in this forum road rash is intended by some to mean some
slight superficial injury. Most of us know that this is not always the
case.

I guess I'm an outlier again. I've had road rash once that I recall,
which means, since turning 18 (about 50 years ago). It was a patch
about 2 cm diameter on my knee. I was more upset that I tore my nice
(non-cycling-specific) jacket.

I do try hard to keep the tires between me and the ground.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You do live a charmed life Frank. Most of us also like to and try to keep the tires on the surface of what we are riding. However sometimes **** beyond our control happens and we go down.

Cheers

It may just be that we ride faster than Franki-boy.

Though I must say that I don't actually remember coming off from reckless riding but only through the intervention of another party; my three most dangerous incidents within the last ten years were caused by a woman turning short at a corner and putting me on the pavement, a drunk shooting through a junction, and a farmer putting slurry in a hill.

All three incidents could of course have been avoided by taking the lane and speaking to them sternly, as Krygo wants. Yeah. And the Pope is a snake charmer.

Andre Jute

On 4/11/2015 12:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:18:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Is it possible for a bicyclist to get a scratch on
the head and _not_ get a helmet lecture? Is it possible for a motorist
or pedestrian to _ever_ get a helmet lecture, even if he's nearly killed
by a head injury? The treatment of the groups is nowhere near
proportional to the actual TBI count or TBI.

Actually, if the person got a scratch on his or her head from falling on a bike, you would lecture him or her for falling -- and then someone might recommend a helmet -- particularly if the person were prone to falling.

I have spent considerable time explaining to people how to not crash.
It's one of the things my club asks me to do, and thanks me for doing.

None of which belies the point I made about helmet lectures. Do you
know of any incident where a pedestrian or motorist got a helmet
lecture? Since those activities generate far more TBI than bicycling,
shouldn't those folks get the lecture? There are certainly plenty of
pedestrians who are prone to falling!

Frank, you're more fun than going to the tide pool and poking the sea anemones.

Glad you're enjoying ignoring the points I've made, Jay.

Here's another poke:

http://floridacyclinglaw.com/images/...r_Cyclists.pdf

I see every edition of those, and save most on my hard drive. Show me
something pertinent that I haven't seen.

--
- Frank Krygowski

FRANK

you are moe fun than:

squeezing the octopus' head