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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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

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