|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
Why are we wasting time on the death of one celebrity racing cyclist,
travelling at a speed most of us will never achieve, on roads only Jobst and Lou have ever seen? There is plenty of data about cyclists just like us to talk about: • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf That looks to me like helmets saved 33 lives of cyclists like us riding at speeds like ours on urban streets of a type familiar to most of us. Andre Jute Eventually the message will register On Sep 1, 5:58*pm, Phil W Lee wrote: Dan O considered Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:52:21 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: On Aug 31, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Aug 31, 6:46 pm, Dan O wrote: I googled "Casartelli" looking for examples of the "nonsense claims" you mention. *At Wikipedia I found: "Many have claimed if Casartelli had been wearing a modern bicycle helmet his life might have been saved." Which is nonsense. *The collision was at a speed no bike helmet could handle. *Surely you don't think these things are good for 45mph into solid concrete, do you?? My dictionary says the word "might" is "used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: *We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" What do you mean "handle", anyway? *All we know is that hitting his head without a helmet killed him. *It is entirely possible that a helmet could have attenuated and/or deflected and/or otherwise altered the forces enough to change the outcome. *A longshot? *Probably - *almost* certainly - but still possible. Only if you seriously believe that helmets have some kind of magic fairy dust used in their manufacture. ... and: "Disteldorf added that had Casartelli been wearing a hard helmet 'some injuries could have been avoided'." "Some injuries"? *I don't doubt the truth of that, but I very much doubt its practicality. *No matter what minor injuries it may have prevented, it would certainly not prevent his death. "Minor injuries"? *Where did you get that? The only injuries that a cycle helmet could have prevented or mitigated in that kind of incident would be the minor ones, not the ones which killed him. "Certainly"? *Others are saying "might" and could". *You are the only one saying "would". The next hit,http://www.bhsi.org/timesart.htm, *offered: "Fabio Casartelli may not have died if he had been wearing a helmet." I know this kind of stuff makes *you* see red, but "nonsense"? *I'm not finding anyone saying "a certified-for-14-mph helmet would have saved him". Can you please cite some of the "nonsense claims" to which you refer? Dan, there's no need for me to cite those nonsense claims. *You've just done that. You said, "There were - and still are - claims that a certified-for-14- mph helmet would have saved him." Cite, please, or retract. What else would a "modern bicycle helmet" be but one certified to modern standards? Because of your faith, you don't recognize the nonsense - but it's still nonsense. *In a direct hit between a concrete pillar and a person's head at over 45 mph, a certified-for-14-mph helmet is simply not going to make a difference! *Anybody believing it will is either a helmet fundamentalist, or a dishonest helmet promoter. *Or both. Talk about a fundamentalist. There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy. I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else to share in their fantasies. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
On Sep 1, 9:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
snip There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy. I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else to share in their fantasies. You failed to quote the really telling statistic from the report - "Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles". You place yourself in dodgy company. There was an asshole here in the UK who, failing to watch where he was going, killed a cyclist and then had the timerity to start a campaign to make wearing of helmets mandatory. Faced with such stupidity and denial, it's no wonder that cyclists are less than enamoured when somebody starts lecturing them about wearing helmets. Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are. UD |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
On Sep 1, 2:38*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote: snip There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy. I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else to share in their fantasies. You failed to quote the really telling statistic from the report - "Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles". *You place yourself in dodgy company. *There was an asshole here in the UK who, failing to watch where he was going, killed a cyclist and then had the timerity to start a campaign to make wearing of helmets mandatory. *Faced with such stupidity and denial, it's no wonder that cyclists are less than enamoured when somebody starts lecturing them about wearing helmets. *Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are. UD They have made cars 10 times as safe lately with so many air bags as if reckless driving wouldn't result in death. For cyclists it does. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
On Sep 1, 10:38*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote: snip I'm afraid, Uncle Dave, that people will assume the worst of you for snipping the numbers and the reference. So I give them again for everyone's benefit. • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy. I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else to share in their fantasies. Yes, that's why I want to publish honest statistics, because there are too many malicious clowns who lie about the numbers. You failed to quote the really telling statistic from the report - "Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles". *You place yourself in dodgy company. * That's always the danger when you make soundbite summaries for the soundbite minds on the net. The short-brain anti-helmet zealots were complaining that the report and even my summary were too long for them to grasp, so I made that crisp summary, which left out the more obvious, generally agreed statistics, like "Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles." There was an asshole here in the UK who, failing to watch where he was going, killed a cyclist and then had the timerity to start a campaign to make wearing of helmets mandatory. * Some people have a goddamn cheek. Faced with such stupidity and denial, it's no wonder that cyclists are less than enamoured when somebody starts lecturing them about wearing helmets. I hope you aren't talking about me. I made no recommendation for either helmet wear or against, for either mandatory helmet laws or against. I'm publishing honest statistics as a social service to cyclists. I don't appreciative anonymous clowns trying to insinuate that I have an agenda. *Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are. I agree. The culture has to be changed to make the driver responsible when he hits the cyclist. Andre Jute Krygo, he say, "Any old number is good number." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
In article
, Uncle Dave wrote: Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are. Sometimes. And sometimes the problem is a loose nut holding on to the handlebars. We've all seen the idiots riding the wrong way against traffic, the wrong way down one way streets, blowing through red lights and stop signs, riding in dark clothing without lights or reflectors at night, riding with no brakes, etc. The term "contributory negligence" applies. -- That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What about cyclists like us?
On Sep 2, 4:15*am, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article , *Uncle Dave wrote: Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are. Sometimes. *And sometimes the problem is a loose nut holding on to the handlebars. *We've all seen the idiots riding the wrong way against traffic, the wrong way down one way streets, blowing through red lights and stop signs, riding in dark clothing without lights or reflectors at night, riding with no brakes, etc. *The term "contributory negligence" applies. -- That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo. Gee. Sometimes I really wonder if we're all on the same side. -- Andre Jute |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
when will cyclists learn that pedestrian crossings are for .....pedestrians, not cyclists | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | August 12th 10 07:08 AM |
Top tip for cyclists | Mr Benn[_2_] | UK | 18 | January 24th 10 07:05 PM |
Are women cyclists in more danger than men cyclists? | Claude[_3_] | Australia | 2 | October 23rd 09 08:24 PM |
Do cyclists' dogs chase cyclists? | Gooserider | General | 14 | May 9th 06 01:22 PM |
New for Cyclists | Gary Coles | Unicycling | 0 | December 10th 05 09:24 AM |