John C. Ratliff

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

I-Like-To-Bike

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?

chasm54

Even the UK, surprisingly given our tendency to pass ridiculous laws...

John C. Ratliff

No, it did not; it is a Rivendell Rambouillet; I liked its ride and feel.

John

I-Like-To-Bike

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 can't wear a helmet in the winter, it interferes with the roof cover on my velomobile.

Six jours

And digitalmouse wins the thread. We can all go home now.

digitalmouse

woo! never won a thread before

John C. Ratliff

All of the above. 'Hadn't considered it a potential. I'm old enough to have ridden bikes similarly equipped for decades. But then, that's another reason for wearing a helmet; there are things you don't think about that happen. It's a last resort, but I'm glad I had it on. And, I'm glad my landing space was soft too. Another 15 seconds, and it could have been a cement surface. By the way, my original post was a response to another post asking how to wear a helmet over a hood. So my message is to check your bikes better than I did, and that you can wear a helmet over a jacket hood (and that it's a good idea too). Now, are you finished with your attack mode?

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

I-Like-To-Bike

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?

NCbiker

Wow! It's hard to believe you can't see that a potential mechanical failure is more reason to where a helmet. They happen to even the most diligent mechanics. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your post did seem to be an attack, but what the hell do I know, as I don't have enough sense to stay out of this thread.

LesterOfPuppets

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?

Doohickie

On our breakfast ride today, we had a possibly related situation. After breakfast we were unlocking the bikes and we noticed one of the cyclists had a loose front wheel. Playing around a little bit, it seemed like every time we tried to flip the quick release to lock it, it would actually catch on the upper edge of the lawyer lips. Put the wheel down and it would slip into the recess, and the "tight" skewer would no longer be tensioned and the wheel would feel loose. To get her home, we finally just used the closed skewer basically like a wingnut after it shifted into the recess to tighten the skewer.

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

Six jours

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.

mconlonx

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.

NCbiker

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.

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.

NCbiker

I see, well I guess it's best I let you two carry on without my interference, so I'll leave you with this. In the event of a knock-down, you will be directed to go to a neutral corner. You are both professionals so I expect a good, clean fight! Protect yourself at all times!.. Okay, touch gloves and come out at the bell!

prathmann

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.

Six jours

Metal fenders only. People who use plastic fenders are organ donors who deserve to die.

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!

Six jours

I had in mind the folks for whom emergency braking means stomping on the pedal as hard as they can. I am acquainted with several cautious, conscientious motorists who do exactly that. For them, I am confident that ABS helps protect them from themselves. (They also are helmeteers. Hmmm...)

People who believe in risk compensation are organ donors who deserve to die.

(Sorry, it's addictive.)

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

350htrr

[B]Maybe that's because ABS needs input from the driver to work as designed to reduce accidents... You know, something hard, and requiring skills, like turning the steering wheel to steer around the accident spot to avoid it... Thus, failing to noticeably help in a statistical way... unlike the airbag or seat belt that works as designed to work without the input of the operator (except for putting on the seat-belt, which any dummy with a driving licence can actually do)...

John C. Ratliff

Okay, a couple of things here. My post was to illustrate that a bike helmet can be worn over a jacket hood. This was asked by elcruxio, who wrote in his post "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, snow and ice as injury prevention? Snow is really soft compared to concrete, ice fairly soft and neither causes the grinding away of scalp that asphalt and concrete do. When it's under -20 celsius I'm using a cap from now on." My answer was no, and that a helmet can help in a fall, as illustrated in my own recent experience.

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.

Actually, I answered "All of the above" to your questions. Astonishing hypocracy? Nope, just reality. Nobody's perfect. Unforeseen things happen. Yes engineering controls are better than personal protective equipment (bike helmet is just part of PPE). That is why I bought the Rans Stratus recumbant (pictured below) which now has over 12,000 miles on it. An accident like my recent experience would be impossible on the Rans Stratus, as I would have been bumped on my rump, not my head. I like the ride of the Rambouillet, but I also need it if I travel by MAX train or bus, as the long wheel base recumbant won't work for multi-modal transportation.

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.

First, you got my name wrong. It's John C. Ratliff. Once in high school, my swimming coach asked why I hadn't swam a race. I told him I wasn't in it. He showed me the program, and the name was J. Patcliffe. It wasn't ever recognizable to me. I will say one thing, at least I put my name out there, which you don't. That, along with your type of posts, rates you as a "troll" under internet definitions. You mentioned somewhere above that I posted "bloody pictures" but it actually is a very dirty photo with a couple of drips of blood mixed in. It would have rated as a bloody photo if I had not had a helmet on, though, as the shrub branch my helmet broke off was about a half inch in diameter, with a sharp stub sticking out.

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