#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
Believe me, you do not want to get a serious concussion. Even today, over 10 years after it happened, I get an "almost seizure". This isn't and actual seizure and I can still operate normally but it is like getting a very deep depression. Luckily it doesn't last for more than a minute at most.
I can still operate totally normally but depression is depression and that's no fun at all. Frank talks about how useless helmets are and I agree with him to a certain extent. It appears that the new Trek helmet sold under the Bontrager name and referred to as "Q-Cell" are designed unlike normal helmets which are designed o prevent skull fractures but rather to prevent concussions. This means that it has to be slightly larger and it is noticeable though not bothersome. They do not look as "stylish" as a Giro but I am willing to trade a little style for more concussion prevention. If I miss my pills which I seem to do in stages now and again - I will turn off my alarm so-as not to wake my wife and then forget to take the pills five minutes later - I get these almost seizures and believe me, they are no fun at all. The pills of course have some negative side effects. I cannot feel the front half of either foot. This screws up my balance. My balance in my brain was effected by the original concussion so I couldn't pass an old fashion drunk test on the highway if my life depended on it. Luckily most agencies now have electronic alcohol detectors. I have to drive around with a disabled person license plate because I've been stopped several times for suspicious driving - doing the speed limit on California freeways. Of course that also puts you on the list for bi-yearly medical examinations.. I have to get my doctor to fill out my form that I'm not going to go wild on the freeway and kill everyone. This in a state where the illegal aliens youths will stop the entire freeway and do "sideshows" until the cops show up and with all of the traffic stopped they will escape down the freeway at 100+ mph. So the cops impound vehicles - usually of the innocent bystanders that were trapped in the back of these barricades. The bottom line is that you really do not want to get a concussion of this sort and if there is one chance in a thousand that a helmet can prevent at least partial injury it's to your benefit to wear one and not prove your independence by pretending that it isn't going to happen to you. I went out onto another bicycle forum and I stated this and rather than intelligent discussion there were the "my helmet saved my life and I think that we should have mandatory helmet laws" posting so the site manager simply moved the entire discussion to the end of the world somewhere eliminating my entire message. Now its time for Frank to show he is an idiot again. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.
I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:19:48 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote: If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote. There was a study done in England that showed that cars passed closer to cyclists wearing a helmet than they did for riders without helmets. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-to-cyclists/ -- cheers, John B. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 03:08:05 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:19:48 -0800 (PST), Chalo wrote: If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote. There was a study done in England that showed that cars passed closer to cyclists wearing a helmet than they did for riders without helmets. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-to-cyclists/ -- cheers, John B. And on average, a test showed that cars pass further away from someone with a long ponytail if the driver thinks that someone is a woman. Weird. Cheers |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 01:51:35 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 03:08:05 UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:19:48 -0800 (PST), Chalo wrote: If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote. There was a study done in England that showed that cars passed closer to cyclists wearing a helmet than they did for riders without helmets. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-to-cyclists/ -- cheers, John B. And on average, a test showed that cars pass further away from someone with a long ponytail if the driver thinks that someone is a woman. Weird. Cheers And why ever not? After all a gentleman strives to protect his lady, not the other way round :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:19:50 AM UTC, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote. I wear the helmet routinely. I've had plastic surgery done to my face and don't fancy it again. Mine was minor but I've seen major surgery and am even less keen on that. There was a recent incident in which the helmet at least saved me stitches. I wasn't riding the bike at the time. I had stopped in the middle of a small country road to paint a scene and as I got off the bike, the back of my sandal got hooked on the bike and I fell over backwards with the bike on top of me. My head hit the tarmac hard enough for a spectacular display of stars and to knock me out momentarily. Without the helmet there would have been at least a trip to the surgery for stitches in my scalp and possibly a concussion, maybe not as serious as Tom's but still dangerous enough. As it was, the truckie who stopped and put me on my feet asked me three times if I wouldn't rather have him drop me at my doctor's. But I know quite a bit about concussions, and was okay enough to paint the scene and then turn for home without completing the rest of the ride, just in case I passed out on one of the faster sections and did myself some damage. The next day it was all a memory, instead of hurting from a cut scalp for a couple of weeks. That makes wearing the helmet worthwhile. I should perhaps note that I'm so fair skinned, I need to wear a hat all the time, and a bicycle helmet with a visor is the hat a cyclist struggles with least, so I have other motivation than any kind of a belief in the claimed life-saving benefits of helmets. I would say, from a statistical viewpoint, that as cycling has grown in the US while the cyclists' road death toll has stayed roughly the same around c700 per year, that there must be some factor to account for it. It could be drivers are more aware of cyclists (ha! -- really?) or even helmet wear. But I'm too bored with the subject to look up the changing rates of injury less than fatality and make an interior analysis of the classes of injury that might be affected by helmet-wear, which might tell as something. Andre Jute Deja vu |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/15/2020 9:27 AM, sms wrote:
On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote: If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall.Â* In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders.Â* There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition.Â* Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one.Â* I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds Which, if accepted, leads to the question: Why are these marvelously magical devices not promoted for the people who suffer the most brain injuries? I say that because it's a myth that bicycling confers unusual risk of brain injury. The clearest indication comes from fatality data. Bicyclists comprise approximately 0.6% of the U.S. total brain injury fatalities. When, oh when, will we give this protection to the other 99.4%? Of course, there are other aspects to this fear mongering. From the linked article: "Chris Rissel, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, told a 2015 Australian Senate inquiry into the subject that cycling numbers dropped after the helmet laws were introduced in the 1990s, which made remaining cyclists more vulnerable. “In safety terms there is a phenomenon called safety in numbers,” he said. “As more people cycle, our roads become safer for these cyclists. “Drivers become used to seeing cyclists and adjust their behaviour, and infrastructure tends to be improved to better cater for cycling. Even if cyclists wear helmets they are less safe with fewer cyclists on the road than they would be with more cyclists about. “Helmets are a barrier to new riders, particularly for occasional and non-regular riders. The need to wear a helmet reinforces the message that cycling is dangerous – with perceptions of danger a major reason people give for not cycling.” So can't we quit the industry-fostered propaganda implying that riding a bike is a big risk for brain injury? It's less of a risk per mile than walking, for goodness sake. If pedestrians don't need to wear helmets, neither do ordinary non-racing, non-gonzo cyclists. Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2020 9:27 AM, sms wrote: On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote: If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall.Â* In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders.Â* There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition.Â* Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit. I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one.Â* I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one. You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds Which, if accepted, leads to the question: Why are these marvelously magical devices not promoted for the people who suffer the most brain injuries? I say that because it's a myth that bicycling confers unusual risk of brain injury. The clearest indication comes from fatality data. Bicyclists comprise approximately 0.6% of the U.S. total brain injury fatalities. When, oh when, will we give this protection to the other 99.4%? Of course, there are other aspects to this fear mongering. From the linked article: "Chris Rissel, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, told a 2015 Australian Senate inquiry into the subject that cycling numbers dropped after the helmet laws were introduced in the 1990s, which made remaining cyclists more vulnerable. “In safety terms there is a phenomenon called safety in numbers,” he said. “As more people cycle, our roads become safer for these cyclists. “Drivers become used to seeing cyclists and adjust their behaviour, and infrastructure tends to be improved to better cater for cycling. Even if cyclists wear helmets they are less safe with fewer cyclists on the road than they would be with more cyclists about. “Helmets are a barrier to new riders, particularly for occasional and non-regular riders. The need to wear a helmet reinforces the message that cycling is dangerous – with perceptions of danger a major reason people give for not cycling.” So can't we quit the industry-fostered propaganda implying that riding a bike is a big risk for brain injury? It's less of a risk per mile than walking, for goodness sake. If pedestrians don't need to wear helmets, neither do ordinary non-racing, non-gonzo cyclists. Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. Bicycling is exactly as dangerous as it is for any particular individual. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/t...tate-data.html It's particularly dangerous for TK since head injury is cumulative, and he spends a lot of time on a bike, increasing the odds of another injury. He should stick to Zwift. -- Jay Beattie. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:30:11 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. -- - Frank Krygowski That bee is buzzing in your bonnet again, Franki-boy. Nobody here says cycling is particularly dangerous except you. You keep that up, soon somebody will believe you. Andre Jute Mein Kampf Too, or The Mother of All Battles Against Bicycle Helmets by Franki-boy Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hitting Goals | Tom Kunich[_5_] | Techniques | 8 | November 26th 19 09:49 AM |
I need help hitting record again. | hungry4uni | Unicycling | 11 | July 25th 08 03:57 AM |
hitting bricks | TerryJ | UK | 3 | December 20th 07 08:29 PM |
UK - Muni head to head race - feeler | kington99 | Unicycling | 37 | March 20th 07 01:58 PM |
Shit hitting the fan. | crit PRO | Racing | 58 | April 6th 05 08:02 AM |