![]() |
Yes, I wanted to know what exactly had happened, so took the bike to the LBS. The mechanic made a thorough inspection, and could not find anything wrong with the bike except that the front spokes were a bit loose. He kept the bike overnight to look for frame damage (there was none) and tighten the spokes on the front wheel. At first I thought that going from a curved downhill onto the level curb section had something to do with it, but probably not unless it caused the bike to jiggle a bit and dislodge the front wheel. The bike had been hanging by a hook on the wall, and I had put about 25 miles on it previously, so at those points front wheel was tight enough. But I may have hit the front quick release when bringing it down, and then after riding about two miles it came loose. At any rate, it is no fun when you try but cannot steer your bike.
Concerning the full-face helmet, yes that would have been somewhat better, but the helmet I was wearing plus the cap did a good job of protecting my face from direct impact. I had no loose teeth, no broken nose, only a tingling in my lower lip which a week later led to a skin eruption. I was surprised at how the bill of my cap protected my face too; a cycling cap, which I have, would not have done that. John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 15173525)
But I may have hit the front quick release when bringing it down, and then after riding about two miles it came loose.
If not, why not for a safety maven such as yourself? |
Originally Posted by digitalmouse
(Post 15172131)
Let me clarify: Northern Europe I was meaning... Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany :)
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15174047)
Wasn't your bike equipped with so-called "lawyer lips" on the fork tips, which are designed as a countermeasure to the safety deficiencies/increased risk of quick release bicycle wheels?
If not, why not for a safety maven such as yourself? John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 15174410)
No, it did not; it is a Rivendell Rambouillet; I liked its ride and feel.
John Or that you didn't consider the quick release mechanisms increased risk to your health, sufficient enough to take countermeasures? Or that you considered your helmet a sufficient countermeasure to the increased risk of using wheels with design safety shortcuts? |
Originally Posted by elcruxio
(Post 15166603)
So what do you say helmet advocates. Should one stop riding in the winter? Or should one just use the combination of thick soft caps...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q...0/PICT0333.JPG |
And digitalmouse wins the thread. We can all go home now. :roflmao:
|
woo! never won a thread before :lol:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15174431)
Does that mean you discounted the risk of Rivendell Rambouillet bicycles that are less safe to ride than the cheapest big box bike that does come equipped with the safety/risk countermeasure that would have prevented your accident?
Or that you didn't consider the quick release mechanisms increased risk to your health, sufficient enough to take countermeasures? Or that you considered your helmet a sufficient countermeasure to the increased risk of using wheels with design safety shortcuts? Digitalmouse, I really like your bike. I'm going to be riding my Rans Stratus more often now. This type of accident would not happen on the Stratus, which now have >12,000 miles on it. John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 15174722)
Hadn't considered it a potential. I'm old enough to have ridden bikes similarly equipped for decades... Now, are you finished with your attack mode?
John Hardly an attack mode to point out astonishing hypocrisy on the subject of a cyclist selecting/not selecting equipment that balances the various needs/requirements for providing the right feel and ride for bicycle riding. If you choose to ride bikes that are less safe than others because you prefer the ride and feel of such equipment and forgo an alleged "safety" measure in order to maintain that ride and feel, who the heck are you to chastise or preach safety principles to anybody for making the same choice about helmet wear? |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15174894)
I've been riding for at least as long as you. And I also have considered the potential reduced risks offered by helmet wear. Which is why I don't.
Hardly an attack mode to point out astonishing hypocrisy on the subject of a cyclist selecting/not selecting equipment that balances the various needs/requirements for providing the right feel and ride for bicycle riding. If you choose to ride bikes that are less safe than others because you prefer the ride and feel of such equipment and forgo an alleged "safety" measure in order to maintain that ride and feel, who the heck are you to chastise or preach safety principles to anybody for making the same choice about helmet wear? |
So I should wear a helmet on canti-braked bikes but not on caliper or Vee-braked bikes cuz the cable could snap and cause wheel to lock?
|
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 15173525)
Yes, I wanted to know what exactly had happened, so took the bike to the LBS. The mechanic made a thorough inspection, and could not find anything wrong with the bike except that the front spokes were a bit loose. He kept the bike overnight to look for frame damage (there was none) and tighten the spokes on the front wheel. At first I thought that going from a curved downhill onto the level curb section had something to do with it, but probably not unless it caused the bike to jiggle a bit and dislodge the front wheel. The bike had been hanging by a hook on the wall, and I had put about 25 miles on it previously, so at those points front wheel was tight enough. But I may have hit the front quick release when bringing it down, and then after riding about two miles it came loose. At any rate, it is no fun when you try but cannot steer your bike.
Concerning the full-face helmet, yes that would have been somewhat better, but the helmet I was wearing plus the cap did a good job of protecting my face from direct impact. I had no loose teeth, no broken nose, only a tingling in my lower lip which a week later led to a skin eruption. I was surprised at how the bill of my cap protected my face too; a cycling cap, which I have, would not have done that. John |
Originally Posted by NCbiker
(Post 15174965)
Wow! It's hard to believe you can't see that a potential mechanical failure is more reason to where a helmet.
|
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 15174987)
So I should wear a helmet on canti-braked bikes but not on caliper or Vee-braked bikes cuz the cable could snap and cause wheel to lock?
Anyone who doesn't use fenders on a canti-braked bike is an organ donor who deserves to die. Or something. |
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 15175278)
That's why I use fenders: so if my canti cable snaps it won't strike the tire.
Anyone who doesn't use fenders on a canti-braked bike is an organ donor who deserves to die. Or something. |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15175115)
Even harder to believe that you think that wearing a helmet is the solution/countermeasure for choosing to use equipment with a higher potential for catastrophic failure just because you like the feel and ride of the dangerous equipment. Especially from a person who lectures others about reducing cycling risk regardless of the inconvenience, discomfort or "feel of the ride" by use of the equipment.
|
Originally Posted by NCbiker
(Post 15175471)
I think you're getting a little carried away here. Unless I missed something, all John said was that he was happy he was wearing a helmet when his front wheel came off. That's hardly what one would call a lecture on reducing cycling risks.
Mr. Ratcliffe has a long history of posting numerous sermons, lectures, statistical interpretations, selected studies etc. reaffirming the importance and necessity of helmet wear when riding bicycles on this list. He often has posted rebuttals to those who have cast doubt on the necessity or practicality of helmet wear for the purpose of risk reduction. He also has been quite willing to state his credentials for knowing all about risk reduction, hazard analysis, and countermeasures. He has actually been one of the more rational proponents of helmet ideology, though his keyboard has been dormant lately, at least as far as this thread is concerned. That is why his epiphany about accepting/ignoring increased risk for the tradeoff of ride and feel is such a surprise. He has never accepted that argument as a suitable reason from anyone else for not wearing a helmet. |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15175580)
You're a relative newcomer to this thread. You've missed a lot.
Mr. Ratcliffe has a long history of posting numerous sermons, lectures, statistical interpretations, selected studies etc. reaffirming the importance and necessity of helmet wear when riding bicycles on this list. He often has posted rebuttals to those who have cast doubt on the necessity or practicality of helmet wear for the purpose of risk reduction. He also has been quite willing to state his credentials for knowing all about risk reduction, hazard analysis, and countermeasures. He has actually been one of the more rational proponents of helmet ideology, though his keyboard has been dormant lately, at least as far as this thread is concerned. That is why his epiphany about accepting/ignoring increased risk for the tradeoff of ride and feel is such a surprise. He has never accepted that argument as a suitable reason from anyone else for not wearing a helmet. |
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 15173125)
But ABS certainly is useful for the average driver who doesn't have any particular skill and doesn't care to develop any.
Which, perhaps, is exactly true of cyclists and helmets as well. And, as you wrote, something similar may be true of cyclists if they took Bell's 'Courage for your head' advertising slogan to heart and engaged in riskier cycling activities than they would have without a helmet. |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 15175387)
Hope those fenders have breakaway mounting hardware, or you an organ donor who deserves to die. Also, you need at least 200,000 lumens of headlights.
And overly-bright headlights will blind oncoming motorists who will then accidentally mow you down. People who use overly-bright headlights are organ donors who deserve to die. Say, this is fun. No wonder the helmeteers enjoy it so much! |
Originally Posted by prathmann
(Post 15175828)
Useful, but not necessarily any more safe. If you read the studies quoted above you'll see that when fleets of otherwise identical taxicabs were divided into those with and without ABS and also equipped with recording accelerometers, the drivers using the ABS cabs tended to wait longer before braking, went into turns faster, and generally drove more aggressively than they did when driving the non-ABS cabs. AIRC from articles at the time, insurance companies were also disappointed that ABS brakes failed to reduce collision rates as they had expected (and based on which they had offered premium reductions). If those drivers without any particular braking skill think that a new ABS-equipped car will let them drive faster and brake harder without having a problem then it won't increase safety and that appears to have happened.
Originally Posted by prathmann
(Post 15175828)
And, as you wrote, something similar may be true of cyclists if they took Bell's 'Courage for your head' advertising slogan to heart and engaged in riskier cycling activities than they would have without a helmet.
(Sorry, it's addictive.) |
Originally Posted by prathmann
(Post 15175828)
And, as you wrote, something similar may be true of cyclists if they took Bell's 'Courage for your head' advertising slogan to heart and engaged in riskier cycling activities than they would have without a helmet.
|
[B]
Originally Posted by prathmann
(Post 15175828)
Useful, but not necessarily any more safe. If you read the studies quoted above you'll see that when fleets of otherwise identical taxicabs were divided into those with and without ABS and also equipped with recording accelerometers, the drivers using the ABS cabs tended to wait longer before braking, went into turns faster, and generally drove more aggressively than they did when driving the non-ABS cabs. AIRC from articles at the time, insurance companies were also disappointed that ABS brakes failed to reduce collision rates as they had expected (and based on which they had offered premium reductions). If those drivers without any particular braking skill think that a new ABS-equipped car will let them drive faster and brake harder without having a problem then it won't increase safety and that appears to have happened.
And, as you wrote, something similar may be true of cyclists if they took Bell's 'Courage for your head' advertising slogan to heart and engaged in riskier cycling activities than they would have without a helmet. |
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 15176324)
Yeah, maybe even provide the "courage" for riding bikes with design deficiencies that increase the possibility of catastrophic wheel failure (ya know -like fall off the frame.) The bright spot is increased chances for a helmet to possibly save another cyclist's life, with bloody pictures to prove it.
I've been riding for at least as long as you. And I also have considered the potential reduced risks offered by helmet wear. Which is why I don't.
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Hardly an attack mode to point out astonishing hypocrisy on the subject of a cyclist selecting/not selecting equipment that balances the various needs/requirements for providing the right feel and ride for bicycle riding.
If you choose to ride bikes that are less safe than others because you prefer the ride and feel of such equipment and forgo an alleged "safety" measure in order to maintain that ride and feel, who the heck are you to chastise or preach safety principles to anybody for making the same choice about helmet wear? Now, I have some news for you; it doesn't have to be the lack of the "lawyer's lips" to be a defective fork. If you are riding a Specialized bicycle bought between 2007 and July of 2012, you may have a defective fork which could be more harmful than no "lawyer's lips" on the bike. There is a CPSC recall on these bikes--Don't ride them until you've gone to the LBS to ensure they are not covered by the recall.
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You're a relative newcomer to this thread. You've missed a lot.
Mr. Ratcliffe has a long history of posting numerous sermons, lectures, statistical interpretations, selected studies etc. reaffirming the importance and necessity of helmet wear when riding bicycles on this list. He often has posted rebuttals to those who have cast doubt on the necessity or practicality of helmet wear for the purpose of risk reduction. He also has been quite willing to state his credentials for knowing all about risk reduction, hazard analysis, and countermeasures. He has actually been one of the more rational proponents of helmet ideology, though his keyboard has been dormant lately, at least as far as this thread is concerned. That is why his epiphany about accepting/ignoring increased risk for the tradeoff of ride and feel is such a surprise. He has never accepted that argument as a suitable reason from anyone else for not wearing a helmet. I think you don't want to see any direct evidence that a helmet can help, even in the most innocuous posting. I did not state anything about it saving my life, only that I was happy that I had it on. I posted only to answer another's question, but you ignored that part too. So what is your purpose in your attacks? John |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.