|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#751
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
The Wogster wrote:
Sorni wrote: wrote: Sorni wrote: wrote: gds wrote: OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor? I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've literally never come close to needing it. Only takes once. Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs, too. But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill? If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in the vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely! The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your Please learn the difference between your and you're. You do that a LOT. (Someone had to say it; sorry! ) likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner, and listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too, often). The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to require helmets, Bzzzt. Straw man. (DOUBLE, in fact.) I don't advocate MHLs at all, and that wasn't the topic when I jumped in this endless thread AFAIK. And I certainly never said and don't think that "only cycling is dangerous...". your (!) saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up and down 10 flights of stairs. The main differences are speed, obstacles, proximity to fast-moving heavy things, chances of operator error, etc. One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle based activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding, urban riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a fall then, others. For example I average about 10,000km on road between unplanned dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's do not differentiate, between different cycling based activities. As for fast moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill section of single-track is much more likely to leave you dismounted, then any car that is reasonable control by it's operator ever will. I, too, mountain bike quite a bit. (Or at least used to; predominantly roadie nowadays.) I fell literally hundreds of times while learning, and still do now and then. (Haven't had the pleasure on the road yet, over 10,500 miles.) I've banged my head off rocks a few times -- hard at least twice -- and bashed into/off of branches and boulders many more times. I also wear eye protection. "Risk Compensation"...or Common Sense?!? Bill "OK, I'm out of this...really!" S. |
Ads |
#752
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote: Bzzzt. Disagree. While there certainly ARE times when I'll ride a bit more aggressively (I prefer...uninhibitedly?) because I'm wearing /some/ protective gear (helmet, gloves, even knee or arm warmers), this wasn't one of them. We were just tooling along, and it I were a regular helmetless rider I'd've thought nothing of turning my head to talk to him. And you think those 1 million hospital treated head injuries were "aggressively" walking along the street or "aggressively" descending stairs or were they just doing an everyday activity when whoops....? You're the one who claimed risk compensation. It only takes just one moment of inattention walking down the street so why take the risk when wearing a helmet is so easy and could protect you? Or does your logic tell you that provided you protect against the cause of 1% of head injuries, you don't need to protect against the causes of 99% of head injuries? Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder to avoid!), I certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your argument. I live and work at home. I ride my bike fairly hard and fast MUCH more often than I "walk down the street". I wear/ use what seems to me to be appropriate clothes/gear/equipment for that activity. That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want! Bill "OK, I'm /really/ out" S. |
#753
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote:
Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder to avoid!), I certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your argument. Not at all. Just curious why you don't consider it essential to wear a helmet for other activities that are a far more likely cause you a head injury. It was you that introduced "Only takes once". So if there is a risk walking down the street or around the home and it "only takes once" for you to suffer a head injury, why do you take the risk? You already own a helmet so why take the risk of not wearing it. I'm curious as to your logic. That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want! Agreed but what I am curious about is why you applied different logic to cycling compared to the rest of life when the risk is there in both and it only takes once. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham |
#754
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote: Bogus stats don't help your "cause" (whatever the hell that is). When I first replied to Frank (something I really should try harder to avoid!), I certainly wasn't advocating MHLs in case that's your argument. Not at all. Just curious why you don't consider it essential to wear a helmet for other activities that are a far more likely cause you a head injury. It was you that introduced "Only takes once". So if there is a risk walking down the street or around the home and it "only takes once" for you to suffer a head injury, why do you take the risk? You already own a helmet so why take the risk of not wearing it. I'm curious as to your logic. That's all I'm saying. You can do whatever the heck you want! Agreed but what I am curious about is why you applied different logic to cycling compared to the rest of life when the risk is there in both and it only takes once. You sure like to over-snip. I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over 10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet). But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). Like I said, do what YOU want and I'll do the same. Bill "off to lidless yoga now" S. |
#755
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote:
But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). Even though that accident exceeds the design spec of your helmet by a factor of fourteen? You need a motorbike, not a cycle helmet. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham |
#756
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole
or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). Ouch. That kind of stuff is what motorbike helmets are for, not cycle helmets! |
#757
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote:
But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). Even though bike helmets are only designed to protect against a stationary rider falling off sideways? R. |
#758
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Richard wrote: Sorni wrote: But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). Even though bike helmets are only designed to protect against a stationary rider falling off sideways? 's OK. He'd rather have a broken neck and scrambled brains than road rash. His call. ...d |
#759
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote:
The Wogster wrote: Sorni wrote: wrote: Sorni wrote: wrote: gds wrote: OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor? I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've literally never come close to needing it. Only takes once. Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs, too. But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill? If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in the vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely! The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your Please learn the difference between your and you're. You do that a LOT. (Someone had to say it; sorry! ) Yeah, I know, my thoughts often get ahead of my fingers, and then I pick the wrong form of a word (my bad). likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner, and listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too, often). The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to require helmets, Bzzzt. Straw man. (DOUBLE, in fact.) I don't advocate MHLs at all, and that wasn't the topic when I jumped in this endless thread AFAIK. And I certainly never said and don't think that "only cycling is dangerous...". I didn't say you specifically did, however the MHL's imply that cycling is so dangerous, that certain safety equipment is required, and then sets such a low standard for that equipment that it's mostly useless anyway. Two circumstances, recently getting into the car, I didn't stoop low enough, and whacked my head on the frame, and my head hurt, so that's a head injury, better require helmets to get into cars as well. your (!) saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up and down 10 flights of stairs. The main differences are speed, obstacles, proximity to fast-moving heavy things, chances of operator error, etc. Forget speed, it's a poor argument, look at helmet standards, they are so low, that a helmet isn't going to protect you much in a high speed, multiple vehicle collision. One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle based activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding, urban riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a fall then, others. For example I average about 10,000km on road between unplanned dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's do not differentiate, between different cycling based activities. As for fast moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill section of single-track is much more likely to leave you dismounted, then any car that is reasonable control by it's operator ever will. I, too, mountain bike quite a bit. (Or at least used to; predominantly roadie nowadays.) I fell literally hundreds of times while learning, and still do now and then. (Haven't had the pleasure on the road yet, over 10,500 miles.) I've banged my head off rocks a few times -- hard at least twice -- and bashed into/off of branches and boulders many more times. I also wear eye protection. "Risk Compensation"...or Common Sense?!? Common sense would dictate, that you reduce your chances of injury as much as possible, that is why, if your working on a light switch in the upstairs hallway, you turn off the circuit breaker, and put a piece of duct tape over it, so nobody turns it back on. I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding, for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle, they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible. Here in Ontario, Canada a MHL for adults, has been defeated, for the second time. They actually simply let it die on the order paper. The reason, some low income people can afford an old bicycle, and it is their primary transportation, but they can not always afford a helmet, so forcing them to purchase a helmet for cycling, removes the bicycle as a means of transportation, forcing them onto more expensive means of transportation, like the under funded city transit system, which then would want more money..... W |
#760
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote: "Risk Compensation"? Hell yeah! So is a seat belt, house insurance, safety goggles, etc. Seriously: It's good you understand that. There are others arguing from your position who can't even grasp the concept. BTW, risk compensation itself is not a problem. Although it's never stated this way, the problem is risk _over_compensation. IOW, if a certain measure reduced risk by half, and as a result of knowing that, a person increased his exposure by one third, he'd still be ahead. One problem with bike helmets is that they are promoted as preventing 85% of head injuries. And they don't come close - especially when you consider the truly consequential brain injuries, not the cuts to the ear and chin that were used to get that bogus number. Furthermore, helmet promotion tends to imply that head injuries are the only thing to worry about. So you have folks thinking helmets prevent nearly 100% of their injuries. They increase their risk greatly. But the reality is helmets prevent very few, if any, serious injuries. People are worse off because of trusting helmets. Watch mountain bike riders careen down a fast, hazardous trail at 20+ mph for a perfect example. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gobsmacked | wafflycat | UK | 63 | January 4th 06 06:50 PM |
water bottles,helmets | Mark | General | 191 | July 17th 05 04:05 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Five cyclists cleared | Marty Wallace | Australia | 2 | July 3rd 04 11:15 PM |
MP wants cyclists banned-Morn. Pen. | rickster | Australia | 10 | June 1st 04 01:22 AM |