Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

In article
. com,
wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
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...

I agree. People do know the risks. Cigarette smokers know, and
have always known. "Coffin nails" "Cancer sticks" "Anybody can
quit. It takes a real man to risk cancer." People who overeat,
drink heavily, take drugs all know the dangers. Nobody thinks or
has ever thought that bicycle riding is high risk behavior.

--
Michael Press

Werehatrack wrote:

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. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is
*yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all
consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact
that they could.

Well-stated. Isn't it amusing to read anecdotes that are invariably
based on the premise of 'this is what I do, I've been doing it for a
long time, nothing has happened to me, so that proves that what I've
been doing is what everyone else should do too.' Never do these people
admit, or understand, what you stated, 'Not all consequences obtain in
every instance.'

On 17 Jul 2005 20:38:13 -0700, wrote:

Here is the release form requested by the underwriters of the League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance.
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

You'll note it does not mention helmets at all, let alone require them.
Apparently, those professionals who made the decision on liability
costs disagreed with _your_ analysis - even though they didn't have to
bear the cost of the helmets!

The only local event with which I have any contacts was apparently
insured by a different outfit; they specifically made the requirement
for helmets (CPSC, as I recall) a part of the contract. If the
underwriter isn't requiring them, then I see no reason for the event
organizer to do so either, but *it's their event*, and they get to
call the shots. No one has a *right* to participate in a
privately-organized event *in contravention of the rules for the
event*, even when that event is using public lands or facilities for
its location. Whether someone denied participation because of such a
refusal would have a discrimination claim against the organizers is a
different matter. The fact is that there is no inherent *right*
conferred by the mere existence of the event.

If the underwriter isn't requiring helmets, perhaps it's time to talk
to the organizers and see why they are not more flexible. It sounds
like you can be persuasive without getting abrasive; use that!
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 17 Jul 2005 20:40:00 -0700, wrote:



Werehatrack wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, 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?

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?

Asked and answered.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
On 17 Jul 2005 20:40:00 -0700, wrote:


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

Asked and answered.

Not really. You said "I can't predict the answer."

When someone says they can't predict their own answer, it sounds more
than a little evasive!

What circumstances might lead you to stop riding upon losing your
helmet?

- Frank Krygowski

Bob Schwartz wrote:
In rec.bicycles.racing gwhite wrote:
Good thing he was wearing a helmet.

Good work. It just doesn't feel like the Tour
without an out of control a helmet thread.

If nothing else, it shows what a bunch of sane, polite
people hang out in rbr, compared to those flamethrowing
maniacs from rec.bicycles.misc.

On 17 Jul 2005 20:22:44 -0700, wrote:



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?

Are there people who'd see if there was one available that they could
borrow before they took that step?

Are there people who might make a different decision if the ride was
rural vs urban, trail vs street, night vs day, short vs long, etc?

I suspect that the answer to each of these could be "yes" in some
circumstances.

I also suspect that the majority, faced with a "ride without or walk"
scenario would ride, in most cases. The helmet is protection from a
low-probability occurrence in most forms of cycling; absent a
requirement (which is not present in everyday riding in most of the
world) helmet usage infers nothing more than that the user finds the
investment (which need not be large) to be worthwhile in view of the
risk. It does not necessarily signify anything else.

By the same token, helmet non-usage does not necessarily indicate
helmet *rejection*, either.

It is perfectly consistent for someone who ordinarily rides with a
helmet by choice to find that riding without a helmet is an acceptable
temporary risk *if the alternate choices available are less
acceptable.* For instance, if the risk of a spill was low, the
environment was not optimal and the hour was late, so that getting
home swiftly would provide greater safety than waiting for a pickup or
walking, I suspect that almost anyone would decide to ride. I could
be wrong. Others might weigh the issues differently, and that's their
prerogative.

Many anti-helmet types seem to make the unwarranted assumption that
all or most helmet wearers are inherently as rabidly pro-helmet as
they are against them, when the reality is that this is not the case.
Do not presume that just because someone *is* wearing a helmet, that
they either have any view about whether someone else should do so, or
would seek to impose any requirements on them. It is as unwarranted
as assuming that because someone doesn't have a helmet on, that they
don't want and/or wouldn't use one. They may just not have the cash,
or they may be one of the unlucky people for whom no helmet (or at
least, none they've tried and/or can afford) fits acceptably. My SO
falls into that category, and she fidgets when I mention going on one
of the evening fun rides where a helmet is required. She'd *like* to
come along, but the closest we've come to finding her an acceptable
helmet has not been close enough. So, we ride our own routes; me with
and her without a helmet. Sooner or later, we'll find one that has
enough ventilation for her, is the right shape internally or can be
padded to work, and doesn't cost over $40, but until then, she doesn't
feel like it's worth the expense. That's her decision to make, and
while I won't stop looking around to see if a potentially acceptable
unit can be located, I'm not going to tell her to stay home until we
find one, either.

(And if we find one with enough ventilation for *her* at that price,
I'm buying one of them for myself, because the cheap Bell I've got can
be a trifle on the sweaty side at times. A little more air flow would
be nice, though I'm not going to leave it home due to that.)


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 17 Jul 2005 20:17:41 -0700, wrote:



Werehatrack wrote:
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?

Perhaps my habits have nothing to do with statistics or publicity.
Perhaps they were formed long ago because the only four people I've
known who had head injuries got them either on bikes or motorcycles.
It goes back a while. The very first time I loaned a motorcycle
helmet to someone (back in 1971), it was pretty demonstrably
instrumental in keeping a friend's head from being lacerated and more
heavily concussed in a side impact from an automobile running a stop
sign. His leather jacket was shredded off of his shoulder, and the
shoulder got cut up a bit, from the smashed windshiled that he bounced
off of. His shoulder was also dislocated, and he had a broken arm and
leg, and a concussion that was rated as mild with no lasting effects.
The styrofoam padding inside the helmet was *flattened* by the impact.
He was literally riding home from my place when it happened. The
reason I loaned him my helmet was that the one he'd been given by the
bike dealer didn't fit worth a damn; it was two sizes too small, and
was giving him a headache all by itself. (And the sonofabitch never
replaced my damn helmet, either, now that I think about it.)

The next two were both motorcyle broadsides like the first one, and
one of the riders still had trouble talking four years after the hit.
He wasn't wearing a helmet. Can you say "concussion, coma, swelling,
fracture with depression that required surgical intervention, and long
recovery?" Yup. The last one was helmeted. Like the first, he got
torn up, but his head wasn't hurt much; no lasting effects.

The fourth was the only bicyclist. He was one of a pair struck by a
drunk driving a small pickup. Did the helmet save his life? That's
arguable. He went over the cab and landed in the bed of the truck;
the helmet was bashed, but it's hard to say if it was an impact that
would have been potentially fatal. Still, the foam took the hit
instead of the blow going to his head. He was a bit dazed, and had a
mild headache for a few days. He's convinced that the helmet kept him
from being injured more seriously. I wasn't there when it happened,
so I don't know...but given what I saw in the photos he had, the
conclusion seems reasonable.

Of course, motorcycle helmets are a lot more than just a hunk of foam.
But that first bash convinced me that there was something to be said
for having that hunk of foam between the head and the bashing object.
In 1971, as far as I can recall, bicycle helmets pretty much didn't
exist; nobody I knew had one. When they became widely available much
later, though, I didn't need to have someone tell me what they were
good for. I'd already seen it.

The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet
promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk.

Incorrect. My *personal* experience has been that *automobiles* pose
a significant risk to me when I'm on a bike out there in their path.
The risk is even greater for motorcycle riders, in my view. I
personally believe that this is because motorcyles can stray into the
car driver's line of travel unnoticed even faster than bicycles can,
and motorcycle riders tend to be less cautious and to ride in more
risky environments than bicyclists. Still, the cars and trucks and
SUVs are a hazard, and it's very real to me.

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

I don't think ordinary cycling is much of a danger at all, by itself.
But I know that the motor vehicles out there are a *real* danger.
Like I said, I've seen what can happen when a car hits somebody who's
on two wheels. I can't predict that it won't happen to me, I've seen
some of the ways that it can play out, and to me the protection
afforded by a chunk of styrofoam is worth the hassle of its presence.
If you don't think so, fine. Don't wear one. But don't try to
convince me that I'm nuts or deluded or misinformed about the issue
and have been brainwashed into doing something unnecessary, because in
my case, it's *not going to work*.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 17 Jul 2005 22:08:13 -0700, wrote:

What circumstances might lead you to stop riding upon losing your
helmet?

I know them when I see them. That's all I can say. (A long run of
crepe myrtle hedge with seed clusters hanging over the only path in an
unavoidable profusion comes to mind as a possible example precisely
because it was damn near enough to make me get off and walk the roadie
through the sodden grass alongside the path instead, even *with* the
helmet to bash them out of the way. Helmets provide more than just
gross injury prevention at times.)

For the most part, though, any immediately identifiable and locally
proximate hazard so great that it strongly mandates a helmet's use
because of a special hazard, is also a place best avoided altogether.
If you know you're going to get hit, don't go there. But it's not the
places where you know you're going to get hit which are the problem;
those can be avoided. My experience has been that it's the hazards
you don't know are approaching until it's much too late to avoid them
which are what the helmet is for...and then a helmet may not be
enough, but it's been better than nothing based on what I've seen in
the past.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

gwhite wrote:

Good thing he was wearing a helmet.

I hope you realize that, according to the rbr rules and regulations for
2005, trolls involving helmets are disallowed and will not be considered
for the rbr hall of trolling fame.