View Single Post
Old 06-06-14, 04:25 PM
Senior Member
wphamilton's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2932 Post(s)
Liked 333 Times in 223 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
Hence the word usually, which implies "not always"

But regardless of the head is higher or lower, it won't usually be by a lot, so it doesn't make much of a difference for the fall and resulting impact. Which was the point.
That's the part of the point that's most wrong. It does make a difference, in fact it makes most of the difference in most falls. Speed is not a factor except in abrasions and cuts, or if you hit some vertical protrusion.

Weird that you want to snark since I basically supported what you were trying to say (the lower height makes the fall less dangerous, not more), but since you snark I'll remind you that what you were agreeing with your word "usually" : "all but recumbent riders and very casual riders" Dead wrong, no "usually" about it.

While we're here, the whole argument about what kind of damage we can withstand being related to evolution on the Savannah is more than a bit off the beam. We have evolved instincts to protect our heads and the physical capability to do so - the fact is that most people have allowed those capabilities to atrophy from lack of experience or training. I'd go even further in saying that the ability to protect oneself in a fall is far more efficacious than is wearing a helmet, and I'm often tempted to turn the argument around when anyone confronts me. Why doesn't that person learn how to fall without banging his head instead of worrying about the lack of a helmet on mine?

Last edited by wphamilton; 06-06-14 at 04:31 PM.
wphamilton is offline