makeinu
02-25-08, 04:40 PM
yup
View Full Version : he asked me if I was wearing a helmet!
Blue Order
02-25-08, 04:43 PM
Wow, I think you're lucky to be alive. Glad you made it. Was there an accident report?
JusticeZero
02-25-08, 04:43 PM
Yeah, that's pretty typical thinking, I find. Just witness things like the TV campaign in Australia I saw that tried to convince parents to make sure their children wore bike helmets by showing X-rays of and statistics for broken arms and legs. I'm quite sure that those people are unable to recognize the absurdity of that even when presented directly with it.
genec
02-25-08, 05:10 PM
Ten days ago I collided with a pipe protruding out of the back of a pickup truck. My right carotid artery was severed and after dragging myself and my bike to the side of the road I covered myself in blood until an ambulance took me to the hospital.
I'm home now, but when I went to see the doc the other day his report said I was riding a motorcycle. When I told him it was a bicycle he actually asked me if I was wearing a helmet. I was, but it obviously didn't do me much good as I never hit my head.
I just found it interesting that the doc was so fixed on the helmet and thought you folks might like to know.
It may have seemed like a rather absurd question... but perhaps he was filling out a poll for some agency that is tracking such data.
I'm home now, but when I went to see the doc the other day his report said I was riding a motorcycle. When I told him it was a bicycle he actually asked me if I was wearing a helmet. I was, but it obviously didn't do me much good as I never hit my head.
I just found it interesting that the doc was so fixed on the helmet and thought you folks might like to know.
It may have seemed like a rather absurd question... but perhaps he was filling out a poll for some agency that is tracking such data.
makeinu
02-25-08, 05:24 PM
Wow, I think you're lucky to be alive. Glad you made it. Was there an accident report?
nope
nope
closetbiker
02-25-08, 07:16 PM
clearly, the helmet saved your life!
Dchiefransom
02-25-08, 07:35 PM
Glad you are okay. Who would we argue with?:D Did you miss seeing the big red flag attached to the end of the pipe? (Hint, hint).
makeinu
02-25-08, 08:29 PM
..
Pepper Grinder
02-26-08, 01:46 AM
oh. my. god.
That's very, very ...i dont know. ridiculous? absurd? amazing? wow, what a cool story to have.
Sucks you got hurt, but at least you can tell a crazy story at the bar whenever you get better. ;) Good job surviving, by the way.
That's very, very ...i dont know. ridiculous? absurd? amazing? wow, what a cool story to have.
Sucks you got hurt, but at least you can tell a crazy story at the bar whenever you get better. ;) Good job surviving, by the way.
StrangeWill
02-26-08, 02:28 AM
Did he say that you should have worn it around your neck? I would also ask him if he happens to know where the carotid artery was after that question.
Anyway, damn thats a major accident, glad to see you're ok.
Anyway, damn thats a major accident, glad to see you're ok.
Allister
02-26-08, 02:32 AM
Ten days ago [Edit: Actually it was 17 days ago..amazing how one loses track of time in intensive care] I collided with a pipe protruding out of the back of a pickup truck. My right carotid artery was severed and after dragging myself and my bike to the side of the road I covered myself in blood until an ambulance took me to the hospital.
All I can say to that is OUCH!! and I hope you recover to full fitness again.
Yeah, that's pretty typical thinking, I find. Just witness things like the TV campaign in Australia I saw that tried to convince parents to make sure their children wore bike helmets by showing X-rays of and statistics for broken arms and legs. I'm quite sure that those people are unable to recognize the absurdity of that even when presented directly with it.
I remember a billboard in that same campaign of two head shots of the same kid. In the first he looked fine and was wearing a helmet. In the second, he had no helmet, but a banged up and bleeding face. Apparently the message is that a helmet will stop you from falling on your face.
It may have seemed like a rather absurd question... but perhaps he was filling out a poll for some agency that is tracking such data.
That'd be my guess, too.
clearly, the helmet saved your life!
Hyperbole aside, it's a fair to say that somewhere between hitting the pipe and laying on the ground, there's the possiblilty of the head colliding with the ground. It may have at least saved him from having insult added to injury, so to speak. It could explain the blurry memory of the event. Fortunately, these impacts from a basically standing position, are exactly the sorts of impacts that they are designed to mitigate, so good news there.
I'm home now, but when I went to see the doc the other day his report said I was riding a motorcycle. When I told him it was a bicycle he actually asked me if I was wearing a helmet. I was, but it obviously didn't do me much good as I never hit my head.
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I know I've had a few where the worst part of the crash was hitting the ground. I'm thinkin' elbow and knee pads would help too. ;) Of course, not crashing is even better
There was also a tv news report, but I'm hesitant to post it for legal reasons.
How odd. Surely a tv news report is public enough to not have to worry about any legal remifications from posting it here.
I'll find out once I get a copy of the police report. I certainly don't remember any flags and, based on what I've heard from a family member who spoke with the officer looking to confirm my death to complete the report, I anticipate that the report will detail the flag violation.
That would clearly be a contributing factor. I'm kinda curious to hear how this happened, though. Rear endings are usually fairly easy to avoid, protruding pipes notwithstanding.
All I can say to that is OUCH!! and I hope you recover to full fitness again.
Yeah, that's pretty typical thinking, I find. Just witness things like the TV campaign in Australia I saw that tried to convince parents to make sure their children wore bike helmets by showing X-rays of and statistics for broken arms and legs. I'm quite sure that those people are unable to recognize the absurdity of that even when presented directly with it.
I remember a billboard in that same campaign of two head shots of the same kid. In the first he looked fine and was wearing a helmet. In the second, he had no helmet, but a banged up and bleeding face. Apparently the message is that a helmet will stop you from falling on your face.
It may have seemed like a rather absurd question... but perhaps he was filling out a poll for some agency that is tracking such data.
That'd be my guess, too.
clearly, the helmet saved your life!
Hyperbole aside, it's a fair to say that somewhere between hitting the pipe and laying on the ground, there's the possiblilty of the head colliding with the ground. It may have at least saved him from having insult added to injury, so to speak. It could explain the blurry memory of the event. Fortunately, these impacts from a basically standing position, are exactly the sorts of impacts that they are designed to mitigate, so good news there.
I'm home now, but when I went to see the doc the other day his report said I was riding a motorcycle. When I told him it was a bicycle he actually asked me if I was wearing a helmet. I was, but it obviously didn't do me much good as I never hit my head.
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I know I've had a few where the worst part of the crash was hitting the ground. I'm thinkin' elbow and knee pads would help too. ;) Of course, not crashing is even better
There was also a tv news report, but I'm hesitant to post it for legal reasons.
How odd. Surely a tv news report is public enough to not have to worry about any legal remifications from posting it here.
I'll find out once I get a copy of the police report. I certainly don't remember any flags and, based on what I've heard from a family member who spoke with the officer looking to confirm my death to complete the report, I anticipate that the report will detail the flag violation.
That would clearly be a contributing factor. I'm kinda curious to hear how this happened, though. Rear endings are usually fairly easy to avoid, protruding pipes notwithstanding.
StrangeWill
02-26-08, 03:01 AM
I remember a billboard in that same campaign of two head shots of the same kid. In the first he looked fine and was wearing a helmet. In the second, he had no helmet, but a banged up and bleeding face. Apparently the message is that a helmet will stop you from falling on your face.
I know that story all too well, while the helmet did protect my head on my major spill, upper lip ended up being swollen. :(
And I rode to work bleeding (it was my day off) to use their first aid kit.
I know that story all too well, while the helmet did protect my head on my major spill, upper lip ended up being swollen. :(
And I rode to work bleeding (it was my day off) to use their first aid kit.
dogsridewith
02-26-08, 08:58 AM
Fact of the matter is:
Whether it is fair or not, whether the helmet would have helped or not, at every stage in the story from officer report to jury verdict, the use or not of a helmet will be taken as evidence of how careful and safety concerned a person you are....same goes for lights, reflectors, bright clothes, front brake on fixie, etc. etc.
Whether it is fair or not, whether the helmet would have helped or not, at every stage in the story from officer report to jury verdict, the use or not of a helmet will be taken as evidence of how careful and safety concerned a person you are....same goes for lights, reflectors, bright clothes, front brake on fixie, etc. etc.
closetbiker
02-26-08, 09:02 AM
... the use or not of a helmet will be taken as evidence of how careful and safety concerned a person you are...
ahhh...
but seriously, I was asked if I was wearing a helmet by the insurance agent after I was hit by a car resulting in a knee injury.
I asked why the question was raised because it had nothing to do with the collision or injury and it was just for data that the insurance company was doing tracking injuries and helmet wearing.
Our insurance company is a government monopoly and part of the benefit of that is they use all information from all the collisions to improve insurance for everybody.
They put out collision reports each year that track all kinds of information and in the instance of helmets, they show the percentage of head injury to cyclists who were wearing helmet to the percentage of head injury to those who were not. There still are some flaws in the system, but it is a help that can get better by reviewing were the reports fall short
ahhh...
but seriously, I was asked if I was wearing a helmet by the insurance agent after I was hit by a car resulting in a knee injury.
I asked why the question was raised because it had nothing to do with the collision or injury and it was just for data that the insurance company was doing tracking injuries and helmet wearing.
Our insurance company is a government monopoly and part of the benefit of that is they use all information from all the collisions to improve insurance for everybody.
They put out collision reports each year that track all kinds of information and in the instance of helmets, they show the percentage of head injury to cyclists who were wearing helmet to the percentage of head injury to those who were not. There still are some flaws in the system, but it is a help that can get better by reviewing were the reports fall short
dmac49
02-26-08, 09:08 AM
When administering medical aid to someone it is not uncommon to ask during the evaluation if the person was wearing a helmet, or a seatbelt (in a car) or other safety related equipment. This will help in establishing a better understanding of the mechanism of injury. As I have said before, I really don't care if you wish to wear a helmet or not. Your choice, not mine. Asking the question can help to establish the possibility of other injuries you may not be aware of. Suffering such an injury you were extremely lucky to have survived the incident. I hope you are doing better now.
WaltPoutine
02-26-08, 09:35 AM
They put out collision reports each year that track all kinds of information and in the instance of helmets, they show the percentage of head injury to cyclists who were wearing helmet to the percentage of head injury to those who were not. There still are some flaws in the system, but it is a help that can get better by reviewing were the reports fall short
So, to take the instance above, do you know would such an accident show up as a datapoint supporting a correlation between helmet wearing and a lack of brain trauma or is it smarter than that, something like ICECI (http://www.rivm.nl/who-fic/ICECIeng.htm) ?
So, to take the instance above, do you know would such an accident show up as a datapoint supporting a correlation between helmet wearing and a lack of brain trauma or is it smarter than that, something like ICECI (http://www.rivm.nl/who-fic/ICECIeng.htm) ?
dogsridewith
02-26-08, 09:50 AM
(I better add qualification here.)
There is also a theory out there using the term "risk compensation" or some such. It is that, to some degree, some users of safety equipment feel safer, and so then show riskier behavior. (This gives some reason to note helmet use, regardless the injury.)
(There is also a Brit's little study that claimed it found cagers giving helmet users less room.)Fact of the matter is:
Whether it is fair or not, whether the helmet would have helped or not, at every stage in the story from officer report to jury verdict, the use or not of a helmet will be taken as evidence of how careful and safety concerned a person you are....same goes for lights, reflectors, bright clothes, front brake on fixie, etc. etc.
There is also a theory out there using the term "risk compensation" or some such. It is that, to some degree, some users of safety equipment feel safer, and so then show riskier behavior. (This gives some reason to note helmet use, regardless the injury.)
(There is also a Brit's little study that claimed it found cagers giving helmet users less room.)Fact of the matter is:
Whether it is fair or not, whether the helmet would have helped or not, at every stage in the story from officer report to jury verdict, the use or not of a helmet will be taken as evidence of how careful and safety concerned a person you are....same goes for lights, reflectors, bright clothes, front brake on fixie, etc. etc.
HAMMER MAN
02-26-08, 10:02 AM
wow,glad your ok and recovering, hell of an accident to have happened.
In regards to the helmet issue, this last july I was involved in an accident hit a pot-hole,dropped my arm from my drop bars lost control went side-ways, went down, and bam broke a couple of vertebras.
In the E.R, I was asked @ least 5 times if I had a helmet on, and I responded 5 times yes I did.
major concerns seem to be head injuries also
In regards to the helmet issue, this last july I was involved in an accident hit a pot-hole,dropped my arm from my drop bars lost control went side-ways, went down, and bam broke a couple of vertebras.
In the E.R, I was asked @ least 5 times if I had a helmet on, and I responded 5 times yes I did.
major concerns seem to be head injuries also
closetbiker
02-26-08, 10:26 AM
So, to take the instance above, do you know would such an accident show up as a datapoint supporting a correlation between helmet wearing and a lack of brain trauma or is it smarter than that, something like ICECI (http://www.rivm.nl/who-fic/ICECIeng.htm) ?
the information is pretty rudimentary.
It would show up in the above example would simply show that a cyclist who was wearing a helmet was involved in an incident and that the cyclist had an injury.
The wording in the reports also changed from
helmetless cyclists suffered head injuries X % of the time and cyclists with helmets on suffered head injuries X % of the time
to
Among non-helmeted injury victims, X % suffered head injuries or injuries to entire body, while X % of the helmeted injury victims had head injuries or injuries to entire body.
The original wording showed there was little difference between helmeted and non-helmeted and the new wording shows a greater gap between the two.
One of the problems is that this leads impressions of effectiveness while not explaining what an injury is, also leading to impressions that an injury is more severe than it is. A head injury is anything above the neck so a scraped chin or a chipped tooth qualifies. It also doesn't really show the differences in injury from different types of collisions. A brush and fall is given the same weight as a full speed T-bone.
The info is pretty simple but it's a start
the information is pretty rudimentary.
It would show up in the above example would simply show that a cyclist who was wearing a helmet was involved in an incident and that the cyclist had an injury.
The wording in the reports also changed from
helmetless cyclists suffered head injuries X % of the time and cyclists with helmets on suffered head injuries X % of the time
to
Among non-helmeted injury victims, X % suffered head injuries or injuries to entire body, while X % of the helmeted injury victims had head injuries or injuries to entire body.
The original wording showed there was little difference between helmeted and non-helmeted and the new wording shows a greater gap between the two.
One of the problems is that this leads impressions of effectiveness while not explaining what an injury is, also leading to impressions that an injury is more severe than it is. A head injury is anything above the neck so a scraped chin or a chipped tooth qualifies. It also doesn't really show the differences in injury from different types of collisions. A brush and fall is given the same weight as a full speed T-bone.
The info is pretty simple but it's a start
makeinu
02-26-08, 10:51 AM
..
Ed Holland
02-26-08, 11:49 AM
wow sorry to hear that makeinu.
About 3 years back I fell in the driveway at work, skinned my legs, bruised ribs badly, skinned my hand badly and needed 6 stitches to a cut on my chin.
At the hospital casualty department, the very same, sanctimonious question "I hope you were wearing a helmet?". I was, and a fat lot of good it did me on that particular occasion.
Anyway, here's wishing you a speedy recovery :)
Ed
About 3 years back I fell in the driveway at work, skinned my legs, bruised ribs badly, skinned my hand badly and needed 6 stitches to a cut on my chin.
At the hospital casualty department, the very same, sanctimonious question "I hope you were wearing a helmet?". I was, and a fat lot of good it did me on that particular occasion.
Anyway, here's wishing you a speedy recovery :)
Ed
X-LinkedRider
02-26-08, 11:57 AM
That is a non-cyclists first question always. "Were you wearing a helmet?" The answers are also pretty typical. Umm yes officer, though it didn't help me from breaking my leg, or help me from getting run off the road buy the drunk driver. But, there will always be ignorant people there. Just smile to know you're still alive and you'll be back riding with or without a helmet before the doctor will.
Bikepacker67
02-26-08, 12:15 PM
Can you describe what happened?
How does one, unwittingly, ride into a protruding pipe?
How does one, unwittingly, ride into a protruding pipe?
RobertHurst
02-26-08, 12:36 PM
ahhh...
but seriously, I was asked if I was wearing a helmet by the insurance agent after I was hit by a car resulting in a knee injury.
Well (and you probably know this Closetbike) the research by Thompson, Rivara, Thompson which is so often cited by helmet boosters showed that helmets protect against broken legs just as well as it showed helmets protect against head injury.
To the OP. Man, that's one for the books. Glad you came out of that okay.
Robert
but seriously, I was asked if I was wearing a helmet by the insurance agent after I was hit by a car resulting in a knee injury.
Well (and you probably know this Closetbike) the research by Thompson, Rivara, Thompson which is so often cited by helmet boosters showed that helmets protect against broken legs just as well as it showed helmets protect against head injury.
To the OP. Man, that's one for the books. Glad you came out of that okay.
Robert
closetbiker
02-26-08, 12:57 PM
Well (and you probably know this Closetbike) the research by Thompson, Rivara, Thompson which is so often cited by helmet boosters showed that helmets protect against broken legs just as well as it showed helmets protect against head injury...
Yeah. It just blows me away that they included injuries that could not have been prevented by a helmet in their results. Even though they adjusted the figures later to reflect this, the fact that they were included in the first place shows just how well prepared the report was. That most people still quote the original numbers is amazing.
Yeah. It just blows me away that they included injuries that could not have been prevented by a helmet in their results. Even though they adjusted the figures later to reflect this, the fact that they were included in the first place shows just how well prepared the report was. That most people still quote the original numbers is amazing.
CB HI
02-26-08, 07:01 PM
Since the Doctor thought the OP was riding a motorcycle, the helmet question might not have been to far off base. A full face motorcycle helmet might have prevented this type of injury, but of course the deflection of the helmet also might have broken your neck.
Glad you survived and are recovering.
Glad you survived and are recovering.
Allister
02-26-08, 07:22 PM
There was some dirt on my clothing when I picked it up from the police, so I must have layed on the ground, but there wasn't any dirt or scratches on the helmet nor any kind of scratches or bruises anywhere on my body, so I don't think my body impacted the ground at all (including my head). On the other hand, part of my front helmet light is mysteriously missing and seeing that it was attached to the snap-on visor I'm having a hard time understanding how it broke off without the visor coming off. However, I suspect the light probably broke off being banged around at the police station.
It may have hit the pipe on the way past as well.
I'm not concerned about the contents of the news report as much as I am about my public comments here losing their anonymity by being linked to the actual incident. Although I doubt it would make any difference, I've known lawyers to advise people not to go making public comments on the internet. Not that I definitely want to pursue any kind of legal action, but for now I just want to play it safe.
Fair enough. Don't overestimate your anonymity on the internet though.
As best I remember the truck cut me off while entering the roadway from a parking lot; I swerved left (I've made it my habit to always try to pass on the left) and was clothslined by the pipe. However, it all happened so fast that I'm not sure if I trust my recollection...especially since I'm not quite sure how the right side of my neck was sliced open if I actually was clothslined while swerving left. Alternatively, I may have been merging right after passing a car on the left when I encountered the truck pulling out of the parking lot. It's hard to say...there's a lot going on on busy streets and, like I said, if I were completely aware of everything going on then I never would have hit the pipe at all.
If you were moving left towards the pipe, it seems logical to me that it'd hit you on the right side.
Sometimes things happen quickly, and even if you are aware of things like protruding pipes, there still may not be enough time to avoid them.
It sounds like the truck driver could use a few words of instruction too. It's bad enough to be carrying a long load without adequate visibility aids, but to pull out in front of traffic with it without allowing for the extra length is just stupid.
It may have hit the pipe on the way past as well.
I'm not concerned about the contents of the news report as much as I am about my public comments here losing their anonymity by being linked to the actual incident. Although I doubt it would make any difference, I've known lawyers to advise people not to go making public comments on the internet. Not that I definitely want to pursue any kind of legal action, but for now I just want to play it safe.
Fair enough. Don't overestimate your anonymity on the internet though.
As best I remember the truck cut me off while entering the roadway from a parking lot; I swerved left (I've made it my habit to always try to pass on the left) and was clothslined by the pipe. However, it all happened so fast that I'm not sure if I trust my recollection...especially since I'm not quite sure how the right side of my neck was sliced open if I actually was clothslined while swerving left. Alternatively, I may have been merging right after passing a car on the left when I encountered the truck pulling out of the parking lot. It's hard to say...there's a lot going on on busy streets and, like I said, if I were completely aware of everything going on then I never would have hit the pipe at all.
If you were moving left towards the pipe, it seems logical to me that it'd hit you on the right side.
Sometimes things happen quickly, and even if you are aware of things like protruding pipes, there still may not be enough time to avoid them.
It sounds like the truck driver could use a few words of instruction too. It's bad enough to be carrying a long load without adequate visibility aids, but to pull out in front of traffic with it without allowing for the extra length is just stupid.
horse&bikerider
02-27-08, 08:15 AM
perfectly normal question as all types of accident statistics are tabulated for county and or state statistical records.
I doubt he cares that much if you were and was collecting data.
Sadly a lot of the hospital works have a lovely term for motor bike and Bike riders
DONER CYCLES
;-(
I doubt he cares that much if you were and was collecting data.
Sadly a lot of the hospital works have a lovely term for motor bike and Bike riders
DONER CYCLES
;-(
Abneycat
02-27-08, 01:41 PM
They sometimes just ask you to keep tabs. I'm pretty sure that someone who managed to secure a PhD realizes the banality of asking about whether you wore a helmet when your leg is the injured section, although i've known some members of the general public to ask such a dim question unwittingly:
but it sort of follows the same sort of tedious, sometimes downright dumb questions/comments you get, like:
1. Whats up with doping?
2. How can you ride in this weather? How can you ride on this street?
3. You should be on the sidewalk!
4. How much did your bike cost?
Good that you made it out of that okay :)
When I had my accident (which was an impact on the face), I was asked the same question - not that the helmet would've helped the face, but it could've prevented the concussion I ended up with that was what left me lying in the street for hours until someone called the ambulance.
but it sort of follows the same sort of tedious, sometimes downright dumb questions/comments you get, like:
1. Whats up with doping?
2. How can you ride in this weather? How can you ride on this street?
3. You should be on the sidewalk!
4. How much did your bike cost?
Good that you made it out of that okay :)
When I had my accident (which was an impact on the face), I was asked the same question - not that the helmet would've helped the face, but it could've prevented the concussion I ended up with that was what left me lying in the street for hours until someone called the ambulance.
Little Darwin
02-27-08, 01:55 PM
It isn't that complex people.
Doctor asks, "Were you wearing a helmet?"
If Patient says, "Yes" the doctor goes down the other branch of his decision tree.
If Patient says, "No" the doctor asks, "Did you hit your head?" or orders appropriate testing.
People look for conspiracies everywhere!
It is not unreasonable that having suffered an injury that leads to several days in the hospital that the patient could have secondarily fallen and hit his head on the pavement.
I am not in the medical field, but in basic first aid I was taught to try to identify all injuries, not just the obvious ones.
Doctor asks, "Were you wearing a helmet?"
If Patient says, "Yes" the doctor goes down the other branch of his decision tree.
If Patient says, "No" the doctor asks, "Did you hit your head?" or orders appropriate testing.
People look for conspiracies everywhere!
It is not unreasonable that having suffered an injury that leads to several days in the hospital that the patient could have secondarily fallen and hit his head on the pavement.
I am not in the medical field, but in basic first aid I was taught to try to identify all injuries, not just the obvious ones.
garysol1
02-27-08, 02:07 PM
I just found it interesting that the doc was so fixed on the helmet and thought you folks might like to know.
How dare he ask such a personal question like that :rolleyes:
It was just a question....get over it.
How dare he ask such a personal question like that :rolleyes:
It was just a question....get over it.
StrangeWill
02-27-08, 02:20 PM
People look for conspiracies everywhere!
+1
I would be surprised how this thread turned out if I didn't know A&S so well.
+1
I would be surprised how this thread turned out if I didn't know A&S so well.
Mr. Underbridge
02-27-08, 03:00 PM
Can you describe what happened?
How does one, unwittingly, ride into a protruding pipe?
I can imagine it would be extremely easy given the right geometry. Stand about 20 feet away from a narrow pipe that's aligned so you're looking at it *on-end*. We're talking about something with a cross-section of maybe a square inch, maybe less. At the same time, you're focused on the body of the truck, possibly tail lights, etc. It is extremely possible that, as you close on the truck, that you could accidentally run into a very narrow pipe that's unflagged and sticking way out the back, because it would be small and be far closer than your eye's focal depth at that point.
Put it this way - there's a reason it's law to put a flag on stuff like that. It's not as visible as you'd think. Glad OP's still around, cut carotid arteries typically don't have happy endings.
How does one, unwittingly, ride into a protruding pipe?
I can imagine it would be extremely easy given the right geometry. Stand about 20 feet away from a narrow pipe that's aligned so you're looking at it *on-end*. We're talking about something with a cross-section of maybe a square inch, maybe less. At the same time, you're focused on the body of the truck, possibly tail lights, etc. It is extremely possible that, as you close on the truck, that you could accidentally run into a very narrow pipe that's unflagged and sticking way out the back, because it would be small and be far closer than your eye's focal depth at that point.
Put it this way - there's a reason it's law to put a flag on stuff like that. It's not as visible as you'd think. Glad OP's still around, cut carotid arteries typically don't have happy endings.
closetbiker
02-27-08, 05:56 PM
...People look for conspiracies everywhere!...
Yeah, I don't know about that.
The OP mentioned the question was raised many days after the collision when it was established what the injury was.
I too, found it interesting that the doc fixed in on the helmet question when it was established that makeinu's impact didn't involve the head.
It's not a big stretch to hear of a helmet fixation when it comes to cyclists. How often do we read about a collision in the paper when it's not mentioned weather or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet when a helmet has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
It's a bad thing, because when we fixate on something that doesn't have anything to do with the issue, we miss the things that are relevant to the issue.
Yeah, I don't know about that.
The OP mentioned the question was raised many days after the collision when it was established what the injury was.
I too, found it interesting that the doc fixed in on the helmet question when it was established that makeinu's impact didn't involve the head.
It's not a big stretch to hear of a helmet fixation when it comes to cyclists. How often do we read about a collision in the paper when it's not mentioned weather or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet when a helmet has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
It's a bad thing, because when we fixate on something that doesn't have anything to do with the issue, we miss the things that are relevant to the issue.
Hickeydog
02-27-08, 06:05 PM
All this talking about how helmets don't protect the rest of your body got me thinking: Is there a way to make a Kevlar kit that would have characteristics of both spandex AND kevlar? Sure it wouldn't protect all of your body, but it would at least protect the vital areas.
bhchdh
02-27-08, 06:14 PM
Perhaps the Doc was asking about wearing a helmet to help rule out a head injury. You are unsure of the details of the accident, and perhaps his question was a simple diagnostic tool.
closetbiker
02-27-08, 06:51 PM
on the first page makeinu mentions the doc asked the question after a couple of weeks had passed since the collision. makeinu also mentioned his head didn't impact the ground at all and there wasn't any dirt or scratches on the helmet. if we are to take makeinu's word as true, is it really plausible that a doctor would be ruling out a head injury at that stage with makeinu's testimony coupled with the physical evidence?
makeinu
02-27-08, 08:53 PM
..
Bikepacker67
02-27-08, 09:03 PM
I can imagine it would be extremely easy given the right geometry. Stand about 20 feet away from a narrow pipe that's aligned so you're looking at it *on-end*. We're talking about something with a cross-section of maybe a square inch, maybe less. At the same time, you're focused on the body of the truck, possibly tail lights, etc. It is extremely possible that, as you close on the truck, that you could accidentally run into a very narrow pipe that's unflagged and sticking way out the back, because it would be small and be far closer than your eye's focal depth at that point.
Put it this way - there's a reason it's law to put a flag on stuff like that. It's not as visible as you'd think. Glad OP's still around, cut carotid arteries typically don't have happy endings.
Ya.. that was a good explanation. I don't know why my initial reaction was so incredulous (and now that I re-read it, probably cold-hearted, as well [though I honestly didn't intend that sentiment])
I guess it just underlines an urban cycling truth:
Expect the unexpected when navigating amongst the behemoths.
Put it this way - there's a reason it's law to put a flag on stuff like that. It's not as visible as you'd think. Glad OP's still around, cut carotid arteries typically don't have happy endings.
Ya.. that was a good explanation. I don't know why my initial reaction was so incredulous (and now that I re-read it, probably cold-hearted, as well [though I honestly didn't intend that sentiment])
I guess it just underlines an urban cycling truth:
Expect the unexpected when navigating amongst the behemoths.
dogsridewith
02-28-08, 08:25 AM
(responding to post a couple places ahead in the thread--"All this talking about how helmets don't protect the rest of your body got me thinking: Is there a way to make a Kevlar kit that would have characteristics of both spandex AND kevlar? Sure it wouldn't protect all of your body, but it would at least protect the vital areas.")
Sure, and weave in some metallic fiber too...to short out tazers and shield electromagnetic fields.
s m i l e
Sure, and weave in some metallic fiber too...to short out tazers and shield electromagnetic fields.
s m i l e
closetbiker
02-28-08, 09:16 AM
I'm over it. Like I said, I just thought the A&S crowd would find it amusing that that was the only question I was asked about the incident and only after I volunteered the fact that I was cycling...
I'm not sure if it amusing, sad or just unnerving that an educated man could ask such a question and it shows that when it comes to bicycles, even people who would otherwise be considered wise, can be anything but
I'm not sure if it amusing, sad or just unnerving that an educated man could ask such a question and it shows that when it comes to bicycles, even people who would otherwise be considered wise, can be anything but
nun
02-28-08, 09:21 AM
When administering medical aid to someone it is not uncommon to ask during the evaluation if the person was wearing a helmet, or a seatbelt (in a car) or other safety related equipment. This will help in establishing a better understanding of the mechanism of injury. As I have said before, I really don't care if you wish to wear a helmet or not. Your choice, not mine. Asking the question can help to establish the possibility of other injuries you may not be aware of. Suffering such an injury you were extremely lucky to have survived the incident. I hope you are doing better now.
The doctor is right to ask about the helmet as he will check you for head injury too. The main injury was your the artery, but in the fall you could have hit your head.
The doctor is right to ask about the helmet as he will check you for head injury too. The main injury was your the artery, but in the fall you could have hit your head.
Ed Holland
02-28-08, 10:30 AM
^^ Good point. Although wearing a helmet does not preclude sustainment of a head injury (It could mitigate the effects of a blow to the head though).
Little Darwin
02-28-08, 10:59 AM
Yeah, but if that were the case don't you think it would have been more appropriate to ask when I was still in the hospital instead of weeks after the incident? Moreover, they'd already taken a few MRIs and CTs to assess my fractured jaw, potential spine injury, and potential brain damage due to blood loss. I'd think those scans would give far more information about any head injury than whether or not I was wearing a bike helmet, especially when all prior treatment had been performed under the assumption that I was riding a motorcycle (which obviously didn't make a bit of difference to treatment, just like the circumstance of whether or not I was wearing a helmet).
Yes, it would be more appropriate if the doctor in the hospital had asked. And yes, you were probably just fine...
However, I have had my doctor ask the same questions that a doctor at the hospital asked. Sometimes it isn't in the file, and besides, I have no issue with answering diagnostic questions a couple of times... It might be of value if the first doctor had not asked some key questions. In this case, maybe the doctor assumed you weren't wearing a helmet because of the MRIs etc in your record.
I am sure he asked other questions that you felt were unnecessary as well. Were any of them offensive to you?
I personally like my doctor. He asks plenty of questions, and answers many too. If you prefer one who doesn't ask questions, his/her waiting room is probably pretty empty, and you won't have to wait long for appointments. :)
Actually, now that I think about it... Did you ask the doctor why he asked? You should. Maybe you would get better information than people guessing on the internet... even me. ;)
Instead of assuming it was some sort of covert helmet conspiracy, why didn't you just ask the doctor?
By the way, I hope my approach doesn't bother you, because above all else, I hope you are recovering well. How is your healing going?
Yes, it would be more appropriate if the doctor in the hospital had asked. And yes, you were probably just fine...
However, I have had my doctor ask the same questions that a doctor at the hospital asked. Sometimes it isn't in the file, and besides, I have no issue with answering diagnostic questions a couple of times... It might be of value if the first doctor had not asked some key questions. In this case, maybe the doctor assumed you weren't wearing a helmet because of the MRIs etc in your record.
I am sure he asked other questions that you felt were unnecessary as well. Were any of them offensive to you?
I personally like my doctor. He asks plenty of questions, and answers many too. If you prefer one who doesn't ask questions, his/her waiting room is probably pretty empty, and you won't have to wait long for appointments. :)
Actually, now that I think about it... Did you ask the doctor why he asked? You should. Maybe you would get better information than people guessing on the internet... even me. ;)
Instead of assuming it was some sort of covert helmet conspiracy, why didn't you just ask the doctor?
By the way, I hope my approach doesn't bother you, because above all else, I hope you are recovering well. How is your healing going?
makeinu
02-28-08, 02:17 PM
..
Six jours
02-28-08, 09:16 PM
It isn't that complex people.
Doctor asks, "Were you wearing a helmet?"
If Patient says, "Yes" the doctor goes down the other branch of his decision tree.
Exactly. Because everybody knows that it isn't possible to suffer a head injury while wearing a helmet.
I am not in the medical field
You don't say. :lol:
Doctor asks, "Were you wearing a helmet?"
If Patient says, "Yes" the doctor goes down the other branch of his decision tree.
Exactly. Because everybody knows that it isn't possible to suffer a head injury while wearing a helmet.
I am not in the medical field
You don't say. :lol:
J A Holman
02-29-08, 12:31 AM
He was on the ball, good doctor. They're supposed to ask in many places, collecting data, not just for diagnosis.
oldguy52
02-29-08, 06:18 AM
Perhaps the Doc was asking about wearing a helmet to help rule out a head injury. You are unsure of the details of the accident, and perhaps his question was a simple diagnostic tool.
Actually, the OP is probably lucky to have any memory at all, or even a functioning left side of his body. Even though there was no physical injury to the brain, cutting the carotid artery is essentially the same as a stroke.
Glad they got you to the hospital quickly.
Actually, the OP is probably lucky to have any memory at all, or even a functioning left side of his body. Even though there was no physical injury to the brain, cutting the carotid artery is essentially the same as a stroke.
Glad they got you to the hospital quickly.
Carusoswi
03-01-08, 05:11 AM
It may have seemed like a rather absurd question... but perhaps he was filling out a poll for some agency that is tracking such data.
Which only supports the suspicion that "well-researched" percentage-quoting scholarly articles supporting helmet use are actually meaningless. Since, fortunately, most cyclists are not killed as a result of the mishaps on their bikes, and since, for good or for no effect, most cyclists (in this country, anyway) do wear helmets, the relationship between such numbers tend to give the impression that they are directly related, when, in reality, they are not.
Caruso
Which only supports the suspicion that "well-researched" percentage-quoting scholarly articles supporting helmet use are actually meaningless. Since, fortunately, most cyclists are not killed as a result of the mishaps on their bikes, and since, for good or for no effect, most cyclists (in this country, anyway) do wear helmets, the relationship between such numbers tend to give the impression that they are directly related, when, in reality, they are not.
Caruso
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.