Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 85 of 130 FirstFirst ... 3575838485868795 ... LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,125 of 3244
  1. #2101
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    Your whole premise on helmets has to do with concussion, but you don’t realize that there are different grades of concussion...
    It's hardly my whole premise and what you're not getting is that the mechanism that causes concussion, is present in all grades of concussion.

    Is this any different when an issue being discussed concerns the loss of life, you bend it to reduction of injury?

    Stay on issue John. It helps the discussion.

    Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street.

    Yes, some people may be more prone to that risk than others, but if you want to go down that road, seniors should wear helmets first because seniors have an elevated risk of head injuries from simple falls, the type of falls helmets can help with. (You seem to be good at looking things up John. Look it up. Google seniors falls head injuries)

    Maybe you should consider keeping that helmet on 24/7 John. It's quite the risk you're taking by removing it when you get off the bike.

    Have you considered that is this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
    Last edited by closetbiker; 06-20-11 at 10:04 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  2. #2102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzinger View Post
    Yes, I admit am probably a silly Canadian who hasn't yet learned not to argue with strangers on the internet.

    I like how Dudley Do-right is reference. I didn't know he was known internationally. Tabarnak.

    In any case, I have found this sticky, long-winded thread very interesting, and have probably reacted too strongly too a couple things that have just annoyed me personally. Ostie de calice
    Tu as compris très bien. Je m'excuse mes mots intemperates.

  3. #2103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    Your whole premise on helmets has to do with concussion, but you don’t realize that there are different grades of concussion (at least you don’t talk about them). All you state is that “helmets cannot prevent concussion.” You don’t even talk about the other, more life-threatening types of head injury like cerebral contusion, subdural hemotoma, and skull fracture.
    Right John. So are you now claiming that bicycle helmets can prevent these "other, more life-threatening types of head injury"? If not, then what has your post got to do with anything. If so, then please cough up a summary of a statistically reliable study which backs up this further extraordinary claim.

  4. #2104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,849
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    apparently don’t realize that these other sports (football, hockey, etc.) involve multiple “hits” to the head as a part of the “game.”
    Since when? Maybe since helmets became commonplace? About the only sport I can think of where hits to the head are a true part of the game is competitive fighting, where the object is to physically hurt your opponent. No team sport has that objective that I'm aware of, certainly not football or hockey. Aggression attracts spectators though so adding helmets is a nice way to allow for more of it without adding too many extra broken noses or head wounds (both of which cause bloody messes).

  5. #2105
    Slam That Stem. Sean Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY; Portland ME
    My Bikes
    my roadie is all business
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    My two cents:

    I am a proponent of helmets.

    I am well aware that a bicycle helmet cannot prevent a concussion; the brain is like a passenger in a car with no seatbelt. I have experienced this effect firsthand, not on a cycle but playing high school football. A football helmet is a much more serious piece of gear, the plastic shell (usually polyester or nylon with a glass fill) has a much greater wall thickness, in addition to more padding to dampen the impact. Also don't forget that a football helmet has a true chin strap that helps distribute force to the lower part of the face.

    I've had two concussions playing football (with a helmet), one was bad enough that I had some permanent memory loss. It was a head to head collision with another player. So yes, I agree that concussions cannot be prevented by helmet use. The only thing that can prevent a concussion is reducing the abrupt acceleration - increasing the distance through which the force acts to reduce the instantaneous load on the brain, with an air bag, for example.

    Given the choice, I would rather not wear an air bag on my head.
    Some of you may disagree

    One big rule of engineering, though, is to never point load a dome or tube. Its the reason the clamp of a bike stand uses curved jaws or v-blocks. This distributes the compressive force over a larger surface area. Because your head is round, it is almost guaranteed that it will contact other bodies at exactly one point on its surface. This is stress concentration. Think of it as a tire contact patch. Your skull is much less likely to be damaged when the load is distributed over a larger area. This is what a bicycle helmet does.

    Concussions suck, but a crushed skull and a concussion is worse. So, your options are to wear a helmet or ride with your head at a lower pressure.

    I also do most of my riding in NYC, where head on collisions with vehicles, car doors, construction barriers, etc can happen to anyone. This affects my opinion. I admit that I have never had a head injury from cycling. I have been in crashes and, luckily, always managed to tuck and roll safely, but I still consider it a risk factor.
    Last edited by Sean Gordon; 06-21-11 at 03:21 AM.

  6. #2106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,849
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Gordon View Post
    I also do most of my riding in NYC, where head on collisions with vehicles, car doors, construction barriers, etc can happen to anyone.
    You sounded semi-reasonable up until this comment.

  7. #2107
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951 View Post
    You sounded semi-reasonable up until this comment.
    I also thought the post was reasonable up until this:
    Your skull is much less likely to be damaged when the load is distributed over a larger area. This is what a bicycle helmet does.
    Modern, micro-shell helmets have almost no load distribution abilities. The plastic is simply too thin.

    Older helmets did a much better job of this but they were eliminated some time ago.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  8. #2108
    Slam That Stem. Sean Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY; Portland ME
    My Bikes
    my roadie is all business
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    I also thought the post was reasonable up until this:


    Modern, micro-shell helmets have almost no load distribution abilities. The plastic is simply too thin.

    Older helmets did a much better job of this but they were eliminated some time ago.
    I never said that the thin shell distributes the load by itself. The styrene, fairly strong in compression, distributes the point load to a larger area of the skull. The thin shell overmold is only there to increase the tensile strength of the foam at the surface in order to prevent the foam from fracturing (read: helps it to distribute the force).

    Also, how does my comment about living in NYC make my post unreasonable? In my experience at an NYC commuter bike shop, we had customers coming in with crushed front ends from accidents with cars every other week. My only point was that I live in a high risk area; that fact affects my decision to wear a helmet.

    Do I support helmet laws for adults? No. I respect other peoples right to decide for themselves. I also have no wish to give police another excuse to harass or ticket me.

  9. #2109
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    EPS doesn't distribute a load, it compresses upon pressure. This compression can force the cells to spilt resulting in a split helmet.

    The shell is there for a couple of reasons. One is to provide a mold into which the eps can be injected and another is to provide a sliding surface over the eps because eps splits apart if rubbed against a rough surface such as a road. Yet another reason for having a shell is to hold the split eps together after it splits.

    The older helmets were better, and safer, but the newer ones are lighter and offer more variation of design.

    I don't want to put words in JJs mouth, but where I see a problem with the quite is that those types of collisions don't happen to everyone. Believe it or not a person can ride a bike sans-collision for an entire lifetime with little difficulty
    Last edited by closetbiker; 06-21-11 at 11:40 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  10. #2110
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzinger View Post
    I'm wondering, what is the rational for pro-cyclists' helmet use? ...
    every so often, the pros use of helmets comes up and this morning, Dave Moulton asks a couple of questions on his blog about helmet use for pros

    Pro Cycling and Helmets



    With the tragic death of Belgian professional cyclist Wouter Weylandt (Left.) in this year’s Giro d’Italia.

    Then just last week Columbian rider Juan Maurcio Soler was left with serious head injuries after a crash in the Tour of Switzerland.

    I am wondering just how much protection does a cycling helmet really give?

    The helmet rule for professional cyclists was brought by the UCI in 2003 following the death of Andrei Kivlev during the Paris-Nice race.

    Since then deaths of professional cyclists while racing have doubled, so where is the protection that helmets are supposed to give a rider?

    According to these figures, in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s.

    However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10 professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders.

    Two of the riders, Brett Malin (2003) and Bob Breedlove (2005) died while riding in the Race Across America (RAAM) and were struck by motor vehicles, not by a fall usually associated with racing. But eliminating these two from the list still leaves 8, double the number that died each decade in the preceding 40 years.

    I never really considered Professional Cycle Racing to be a particularly dangerous sport, but close to one death a year is not acceptable. Isn’t it about time the UCI and the professional cyclists themselves started to look into the effectiveness of helmets?

    **The UCI is quick to enact regulation for every other aspect of the sport, why not do something really useful and set some safety standards for bicycle helmets that would benefit us all.**

    It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on the part of manufacturers in designing something that looks cool rather than do what it is supposed to do, and that is protect a rider in the event he or she should hit their head.

    I see two main problems; the outer shell is weak so it splits open on impact, and the polystyrene foam is too dense, it doesn’t absorb the impact. After all it is the helmet that is supposed to get crushed in a crash, not the rider’s skull.

    Maybe this is part way to finding the answer.

    There's that "style" thing again. This thread started because the OPer thought those who went without were trying to be "stylish", but as been brought up here time and again, it is often those who wear helmets who are trying to be stylish. Emulating pros is just one more way to be so.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 06-22-11 at 10:45 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  11. #2111
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Closetbiker
    riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street.

    Please help me with your logic here.

    I walk down a lot of streets and I wouldn't consider wearing a helmet while doing so. But I ride my bike a lot too. Now where I am today if I go for a bike ride I'll leave my house and immediately begin a 2 mile descent during which I average 31 mph. About a mile down this winding country road a wild turkey, a deer, a bear, a moose might cross the road. There are several bad potholes along the way. About 1/2 mile down the road is my crazy neighbor with his pit bull, which may or may not be out but if he is he'll spot me on the descent and bolt along to catch me as the road veers left and I'm hitting just about 40 mph.

    So here are my questions:

    1) How am I just as safe (from a head injury- after all, we do want to "stay on topic") riding my bike down this same road as I would be if I were walking?

    2) Why would I NOT bother to wear a helmet while riding my bike on this road? The implication I get from your posts (and others) is that helmets are useless, unnecessary and basically a stylistic marketing ploy for adornment purposes only that cause people to ride LESS safely than if they were wearing one.

    I rode for a good decade or so, including riding across Canada and descending the Rockies, all without a helmet. I was just as much a risk taking cyclist without a helmet as I am with one, if not more so. I'm older (and wiser?) now and have been wearing a helmet on every ride for 30 years. If anything, I'm a bit more cautious since I've been wearing a helmet.

    And yes, I've rolled down that road hundreds of times and, fortunately, haven't "needed" my helmet and hopefully never will. But I've been around bikes a long time and I've seen what happens when someone goes down with and without a helmet. And should I go down my guess is that my helmet would afford me some protection that would make it worth wearing every single time I ride. Granted, I could plow right into one of these obstacles, go head first over the handlebars and break my neck or, as I'm sure you'd love to point out get a "concussion" ( a term that describes a wide variety of conditions but I'm meaning it as a life threatening "concussion") and in that case the helmet may or may not do me all that much good.

    However, more than likely, I'd probably go down on my side taking the brunt of the impact on my hip, shoulder, leg and arm. As I slid it would be more difficult to keep my head from making impact with the ground but at this point my speed would be far less and the helmet (or my head, if I weren't wearing a helmet) would scrape along the pavement. I'm one of those lucky guys that at the age of 56 have a full head of hair- I'd like to keep it. I've gotten road rash during races and the idea of getting literally scalped by the pavement doesn't appeal to me. And a skull fracture combined with the pretty serious blood loss from a good scalping while riding in an area where the nearest hospital (not a very good one) is a good 35 minutes away is something I'd prefer to avoid.

    For those of us who occasionally visit this thread I think we get the points that:

    1) Helmets won't save you in every crash.

    2) That helmets won't prevent all concussions.

    3) That helmet design could be improved.

    4) That helmet manufacturers are in the business of selling helmets and not necessarily the business of saving lives.

    But why in the world doesn't it make sense for someone to wear one on a ride as I just described? Please help me oh enlightened ones.

  12. #2112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Please help me with your logic here.
    His logic is fine. The help you need is with yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Now where I am today if I go for a bike ride I'll leave my house and immediately begin a 2 mile descent during which I average 31 mph.
    Reducing your speed would be a smart move. Have you ever considered this?

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    About a mile down this winding country road a wild turkey, a deer, a bear, a moose might cross the road. There are several bad potholes along the way. About 1/2 mile down the road is my crazy neighbor with his pit bull, which may or may not be out but if he is he'll spot me on the descent and bolt along to catch me as the road veers left and I'm hitting just about 40 mph.
    If you read accident anecdotes enough you must surely have read those in which a deer bolts out in front of a cyclist descending at a stupid speed. Usually the mechanism of death is a broken neck for the rider. Strap on a neck brace and you can continue to ride like a fool.

    Does that help, oh humble seeker of knowledge?

  13. #2113
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    His logic is fine. The help you need is with yours.




    Reducing your speed would be a smart move. Have you ever considered this?



    If you read accident anecdotes enough you must surely have read those in which a deer bolts out in front of a cyclist descending at a stupid speed. Usually the mechanism of death is a broken neck for the rider. Strap on a neck brace and you can continue to ride like a fool.

    Does that help, oh humble seeker of knowledge?
    Ah, I see great wise one. So, it's just as safe to ride a bike on my street as walking down the street if I ride the bike at walking speed?

  14. #2114
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    C'mon Buzz. Be reasonable. Individually, stats may mean little, but on a population basis, they're much more reliable.

    We may not know just who will injure themselves, but we know they will.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  15. #2115
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    C'mon Buzz. Be reasonable. Individually, stats may mean little, but on a population basis, they're much more reliable.

    We may not know just who will injure themselves, but we know they will.

    C'mon Closetbiker, be logical or at least avoid generalizations like "Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street."

    We're talking risk assessment here. Do I base my risk assessment of wearing a helmet on population basis statistics or my own given circumstances?

    I'm curious what RazrSktr thinks would be an appropriate speed to travel down my road. In other words, at what speed would my risk of head injury be equivalent to walking down the same street?

    For example, I'll do a 50 + mile ride with an elevation gain of about 5000'. I'll like wise be descending a similar amount. How slow does RazrSktr suggest that road cyclists reduce their descent speeds to in order to avoid collisions and accidents? And, if I slow to his suggested speed, does that still mean I should do these rides without a helmet? You guys keep telling me how safe bicycling is please convince me so that I can take this stupid piece of plastic off my head if it's that unnecessary.

    And, like Sean Gordon, I too ride in NYC. Should I not bother to wear a helmet as I make my way through the traffic in that city? If anywhere I've considered wearing a helmet while walking down a street it's Manhattan. I've had ice fall off of buildings and scare the beejeezus out of me. Who knows what else could fall from one of those buildings.

    C'mon, be reasonable. Tell me how safe I am riding all the places I ride and how I don't need a helmet when I do.

  16. #2116
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am being reasonable. I'm talking about what happens when people are led to believe that riding bike necessitates helmets and if they wear helmets, they'll be safer.

    I'm talking about people making their own assessments and being respected for their decisions, not telling Jim or Bob what they should do
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  17. #2117
    Senior Member skye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    C'mon Closetbiker, be logical or at least avoid generalizations like "Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street."

    We're talking risk assessment here. Do I base my risk assessment of wearing a helmet on population basis statistics or my own given circumstances?

    I'm curious what RazrSktr thinks would be an appropriate speed to travel down my road. In other words, at what speed would my risk of head injury be equivalent to walking down the same street?

    For example, I'll do a 50 + mile ride with an elevation gain of about 5000'. I'll like wise be descending a similar amount. How slow does RazrSktr suggest that road cyclists reduce their descent speeds to in order to avoid collisions and accidents? And, if I slow to his suggested speed, does that still mean I should do these rides without a helmet? You guys keep telling me how safe bicycling is please convince me so that I can take this stupid piece of plastic off my head if it's that unnecessary.
    The statistics and studies have been provided multiple times already on this thread. You can read and assess them yourself, or you can ignore them, your call. But don't ask someone to make that analysis for you, that's just stupid.

    FYI, I daily make multiple descents exceeding 42 mph, on my way to and from work, and have been doing so for years. I commute year-round, so that includes snow and rain days. I don't wear a helmet, and have never been in an accident. That doesn't mean jack in and of itself, but my decision is based on (1) the data regarding head injury and cycling, and (2) the known properties of helmets. You can certainly feel free to make your decision on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells you to do, that's your decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    And, like Sean Gordon, I too ride in NYC. Should I not bother to wear a helmet as I make my way through the traffic in that city? If anywhere I've considered wearing a helmet while walking down a street it's Manhattan. I've had ice fall off of buildings and scare the beejeezus out of me. Who knows what else could fall from one of those buildings.
    Well, by all means, feel free to wear your helmet. Just be aware, though, that a cycling helmet is utterly incapable of protecting your head against debris falling multiple stories onto your head. Not even the helmet manufacturers will make that claim.

    Don't believe me? Ask Bell yourself. Make sure you post the answer here, ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    C'mon, be reasonable. Tell me how safe I am riding all the places I ride and how I don't need a helmet when I do.
    You don't need a helmet. You're safe.

    There ya go, happy now? Many of us have been able to grow up and put our blankies in the closet, maybe you can too, after nap & cookies.

  18. #2118
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    I am being reasonable. I'm talking about what happens when people are led to believe that riding bike necessitates helmets and if they wear helmets, they'll be safer.

    I'm talking about people making their own assessments and being respected for their decisions, not telling Jim or Bob what they should do
    Sorry, but I don't quite see it the same way.

    Let's remove the wearing of a helmet or not from the discussion for the moment and just examine your statement and it's implications of how you formulate risk and how you interpret statistics.

    By the way, what I'm talking about is what happens when people are led to believe things like "riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street." I think that is a most simplistic form of reasoning and a way of applying statistics that draws false or misleading conclusions. That is the topic of my post and if you reply I hope you will stay on that topic.

    Compare these two rationales:

    #1: It can be statistically shown that bike riders and pedestrians have equivalent rates of head injury. Therefore riding a bike down a road is just as safe as walking down a road.

    or

    #2: Though statistics can be presented in such a way that it appears that bike riders and pedestrians have equivalent rates of head injury in real life scenarios it depends on the road, the rider, how fast they are traveling, what obstacles may or may not be present, how mechanically sound the bike is, what physical and mental condition they are in, how skilled a cyclist they are etc...

    I'm calling you on your statement: "Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street. " Please, please do tell me how I have the same risk of head injury bicycling as walking on the 2 mile stretch of road I described in my post.

  19. #2119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,849
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Gordon View Post
    One big rule of engineering, though, is to never point load a dome or tube. Its the reason the clamp of a bike stand uses curved jaws or v-blocks. This distributes the compressive force over a larger surface area. Because your head is round, it is almost guaranteed that it will contact other bodies at exactly one point on its surface. This is stress concentration. Think of it as a tire contact patch. Your skull is much less likely to be damaged when the load is distributed over a larger area. This is what a bicycle helmet does.
    I forgot to mention before, but you should tell any bearing engineer about your "one big rule of engineering." Seems like they either forgot and got lucky, or realized that when something is designed properly, point loading isn't a problem. On a microscopic level, it isn't point loading though, just like when your head hits a flat surface it isn't point loading.

    You are also mis-using the term "stress concentration" which is an entirely different concept than point loading. Read up:

    http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid...scon_intro.cfm

  20. #2120
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skye View Post
    FYI, I daily make multiple descents exceeding 42 mph, on my way to and from work, and have been doing so for years. I commute year-round, so that includes snow and rain days. I don't wear a helmet, and have never been in an accident. That doesn't mean jack in and of itself,
    Hey, that makes two of us!- I, too, commute year round in rain in snow and I haven't been in a biking accident (where I received a blow to the head) but I choose to wear a helmet anyway.

    And yeah, you're right, that doesn't mean jack in and of itself but it does make the point that we seem to take similar risks despite the fact that you don't wear a helmet and I do- so that kind of puts that little myth of the helmet wearers taking more risks in question. And, oddly enough, my decision is based on (1) the data regarding head injury and cycling, and (2) the known properties of helmets.

    And I don't need a statistician nor a helmet manufacturer to tell me that if something falls on my head or if I fall on my head it's going to hurt less if I wear a helmet. That's something I learned as a child when I first bumped my head- just before my nap and cookies- which, by the way, a good nap and cookies is way underrated. You should try it before you mock it.

    Quote Originally Posted by skye View Post
    You don't need a helmet. You're safe.
    Gee whiz, I'd like to believe you but somehow I just don't think I'm as tough nor as thickheaded as you so I think I'll stick with the helmet.

  21. #2121
    Yabba-Dabba-Doo! AlmostTrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedrock, IL
    My Bikes
    1969 Schwinn Orange Krate, 5 speed stick shift
    Posts
    3,058
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    I'm calling you on your statement: "Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street. ".
    I too call out those who continuously like to say biking is safer than walking down the street, down the stairs, or taking a shower. I know where they get their numbers for these claims, and it's from the total counts of injuries / deaths for each given activity for the overall population. This is hardly a sound way for an individual to assess their own risk. Using this same logic, playing Russian Roulette is much safer than riding a bike.
    Have Bike, Will Travel

  22. #2122
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Bicycling is more hazardous than being a pedestrian

    CB, you have stated that,
    Understand, or remember as this has been shown to you time and again, that riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street.
    There are new studies out that dispute what you say here. My experience, and that of my family and friends, is that cycling is more hazardous than walking and being a pedestrian. Take a look at this study, titled "Injuries to pedal cyclists on New Zealand roads, 1988-2007," by Sandar, et. al. In this study, they have a Table 1, which shows the injury rates of various categories of road users. If you look at this table, and read the study, you will find that only motorcyclists have a worse injury rate than bicyclists, and that the bicyclist is over 12 times more likely to be injured in New Zealand in the most recent time period than a pedestrian, and 6.6 times more likely to receive a serious injury. This is more like the experiences I have noted over the years.

    Last weekend I did not ride, but went scuba diving (I've been doing that almost as long as I have been riding a bicycle). My second dive on Sunday had to be delayed though:
    1. I got delayed when, while dressing for the dive a bicyclist crashed about 50 yards from my car. He was hurting badly, and two people were looking after him but no one was calling 911. So I made the call. I went over, and evaluated the kid. The poor guy had a bruise under his eye and most probably a broken right elbow. A nurse was also there, but he was saying that he had a headache too. He had already called his Dad, so his Dad did not have a good Father’s Day. The ambulance arrived (I told them to look for the scuba diver—I kinda stood out). I told them that he had a probable broken right arm, possible head injury (his helmet was being worn, but had been previously broken). By the time I got going toward my dive, I’d been geared up in the sun (without weight belt, but that’s all) for about 25 minutes.
    Read more: http://vintagescuba.proboards.com/in...#ixzz1Q50JbXFw
    This kid apparently had a mechanical problem with his bike that caused the fall. He hit a curb, and was not feeling well at all. I don't know the outcome, as after the ambulance arrived I went to my dive.

    John
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 06-23-11 at 01:07 AM. Reason: Add Table 1 to the post; add information about the bike accident
    John Ratliff

  23. #2123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,849
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    If you look at this table, and read the study, you will find that only motorcyclists have a worse injury rate than bicyclists, and that the bicyclist is over 12 times more likely to be injured in New Zealand in the most recent time period than a pedestrian, and 6.6 times more likely to receive a serious injury. This is more like the experiences I have noted over the years.
    Interesting that your experience (or are you noting the experiences of others somehow?) matches the study so well, John, when they openly admit that non-collision crashes involving children (like kids who barely know how to balance on a bike) contribute to the majority of the incidents.

    Results
    Cyclists had the second highest rate of traffic injuries compared to other major road user categories and the rate increased from 1996-99 to 2003-07. During 2003-07, 31 injuries occurred per million hours spent cycling. Non-collision crashes (40%) and collisions with a car, pick-up truck or van (26%) accounted for two thirds of the cycling injuries. Children and adolescents aged under 15 years were at the highest risk, particularly of non-collision crashes.

  24. #2124
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Sorry, but I don't quite see it the same way... Please, please do tell me how I have the same risk of head injury bicycling as walking on the 2 mile stretch of road I described in my post.
    You can see it anyway you want, but it doesn't change what happens.

    It also doesn't change what I've already posted, that population results show accurate accounts of what happens.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  25. #2125
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    ... There are new studies out that dispute what you say here.
    no kidding.

    I just read a policy statement by the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine that, based on a study, claimed that bicycling held a higher risk of head injury than motorcycling.

    I contacted the CASM and they admitted the study misrepresented the facts.

    There's also another study out there that says wearing a helmet will reduce head injury by 85% and brain injury by 88%

    The authors of that study also said those figures were not only incorrect, they only applied to children under 5 years of age.

    Some studies will say practically anything, even if it's not a true picture.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

Page 85 of 130 FirstFirst ... 3575838485868795 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •