Helmet saved my...

JCrowe

SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying
>> about what I said. I never claimed it saved my life.
>>
>> The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
>> viewpoint. What better example?
>
> In their world perhaps there is nothing between dead and not-dead.
>
> It remind me of what the old Cingular in the western region used to tell
> customers that called to cancel service because of coverage issues.
> 'Well you know that no carrier has 100% coverage.' They were trying to
> make the case that since the other carriers didn't have 100% coverage
> that all carriers were equal in providing coverage of less than 100%.
> Nice try.
>
> In terms of helmets, it's true that in a horrific crash with a vehicle,
> the cyclist will be equally dead with or without a helmet. But there's a
> lot of cases where head injuries will be greatly reduced or eliminated
> entirely by virtue of a helmet. All the statistics on crash data bear
> out this fact.
>
> Of course the usual response to actual crash data is to immediately
> change the subject to whole population studies with the bogus claim that
> deaths and injuries don't change much after the implementation of a
> helmet law, so this proves that helmets don't offer any protection.
>
> When that doesn't work, it's time to bring up driving helmets and
> walking helmets, claim that people will die of heart attacks because
> they will gain weight after deciding not to ride a bicycle because they
> have to wear a helmet. "Tangential commentary, logical fallacy, and
> outright falsehood," is what Ozark called all this, and it's the most
> accurate and concise description I've seen to describe the postings of
> the AHZ and what's at cyclehelmets.org.

In the end, the choice to use or not use a helmet does, or at least
should in a free country, remain with the individual. I personally wear
one, but I don't care if other people make the same choice. BTW, Bill,
I hope you heal at a good pace. There are some intense hills around
La Jolla IIRC.


--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway

Bill Sornson

JCrowe wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>> Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying
>>> about what I said. I never claimed it saved my life.
>>>
>>> The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
>>> viewpoint. What better example?
>>
>> In their world perhaps there is nothing between dead and not-dead.
>>
>> It remind me of what the old Cingular in the western region used to
>> tell customers that called to cancel service because of coverage
>> issues. 'Well you know that no carrier has 100% coverage.' They were
>> trying to make the case that since the other carriers didn't have
>> 100% coverage that all carriers were equal in providing coverage of
>> less than 100%. Nice try.
>>
>> In terms of helmets, it's true that in a horrific crash with a
>> vehicle, the cyclist will be equally dead with or without a helmet.
>> But there's a lot of cases where head injuries will be greatly
>> reduced or eliminated entirely by virtue of a helmet. All the
>> statistics on crash data bear out this fact.
>>
>> Of course the usual response to actual crash data is to immediately
>> change the subject to whole population studies with the bogus claim
>> that deaths and injuries don't change much after the implementation
>> of a helmet law, so this proves that helmets don't offer any
>> protection. When that doesn't work, it's time to bring up driving helmets
>> and
>> walking helmets, claim that people will die of heart attacks because
>> they will gain weight after deciding not to ride a bicycle because
>> they have to wear a helmet. "Tangential commentary, logical fallacy,
>> and outright falsehood," is what Ozark called all this, and it's the
>> most accurate and concise description I've seen to describe the
>> postings of the AHZ and what's at cyclehelmets.org.
>
> In the end, the choice to use or not use a helmet does, or at least
> should in a free country, remain with the individual. I personally
> wear one, but I don't care if other people make the same choice. BTW,
> Bill, I hope you heal at a good pace. There are some intense hills
> around La Jolla IIRC.

Thank you, J. Ironic thing in this case was that Via Capri is very gnarly
up top -- broken, uneven pavement with all kinds of hazards -- but where I
ate it the road is nice and smooth (recently re-paved).

Had my shoulder X-rayed yesterday and next is P.T. Still hoping to avoid
need for surgical repair.

As for my head, I have absolutely zero injuries or effects from the fall.
My $20 Bell helmet (brand new) saved me from a good deal of damage. (It's
cracked in numerous places and the shell is buckled where main impact
occurred.)

I'm not in favor of MHLs, but I sure as hell am in favor of wearing a lid
for all but "boardwalk cruising"-type riding. (And even then, it doesn't
take much to have a nasty fall. Just never know.)

Bill "on the mend" S.

Bill Sornson

Werehatrack wrote:
> Haven't read the thread yet, but my immediate reaction was "I'm glad
> this is in rbm instead of rbt."
>
> [grabs nomex glasses]

Whole title was an ode to those infamous "helmet saved my life"
trolls/flames/threads. (Original pics posted are down to make room for
tire/tube photo; one cracked lid shot remains.)

Camilo

On Jun 1, 11:20 am, Beach Runner <LowHe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 12:00 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 1:47 pm, Beach Runner <LowHe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 5:53 am, "Pat" <ex...@tmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Frank Krygowski" --why don't you and landotter start your own newsgroup?
> > > > You're isolated here as stubborn cases who refuse to believe anybody's
> > > > testimony or eyewitness accounts. In my own riding club, practically
> > > > everyone has either had an accident or witnessed someone's accident.
> > > > Evidently, you haven't had an accident. That's great, but don't keep
> > > > denigrating people who have first hand experience. Frankly, I wonder if you
> > > > would even have the guts to post anything after an accident, such as, "I
> > > > sure wish I had a helmet that day." Nah, that would be too much to ask
> > > > for....
>
> > > My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
> > > limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
> > > was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
> > > to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>
> > No question? Did he try it again without the helmet and die to confirm?
>
> No, but at 82, battling cancer, he still rides several miles a day,
> something
> that takes his incredible tenacity and the fact he was smart enough
> to
> wear a helmet.

But what you've written has nothng to do on the issue of whether the
helmet saved his life. I would not doubt it saved him a nasty knock
on the head, but you have absolutely no idea if it was a life-
threatening knock.

Dane Buson

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:53 am, "Pat" <ex...@tmail.com> wrote:
>> "Frank Krygowski" --why don't you and landotter start your own newsgroup?
>> You're isolated here as stubborn cases who refuse to believe anybody's
>> testimony or eyewitness accounts.
>
> Pat, some extremely intelligent helmet skeptics have told me they've
> given up trying to convince the innumerate helmeteers by using logic.
> They've complimented me for having far more patience than they do.
> That's the prime reason that helmet worshippers have the majority in
> this particular thread.

I'll chime in with some agreement. I think helmets are incredibly
overrated and I'm perfectly comfortable riding without one. I think the
over-promotion of them is harmful to cycling in general and harmful to
me in the specific due to decreased riders.

I just normally ignore the helmet threads because most of the pro-helmet
people tend towards the irrational and rarely argue with any
intellectual rigour.

>> In my own riding club, practically
>> everyone has either had an accident or witnessed someone's accident.
>
> OK, if you say so. I don't believe that's true in my club, unless you
> define "accident" and "witness" very, very loosely. I've been very
> active in a large club for over 25 years. (President, multiple other
> offices, etc.) I've seen less than ten on-road crashes, none of which
> caused significant injury. YMMV.

Oh, my cycling group has crashes every week (pretty much). On the other
hand, many of the people are idiots, or doing idiotic things - or both!
After a while you realize that most crashes aren't that big a deal, and
the ones that are usually don't involve head injuries. i.e., cycling
isn't all that dangerous, shut up and ride.

Personally all my accidents that resulted in significant injuries have
been on bike paths, involving noone else, and involved no injuries a
helmet could have prevented.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies."
-Honore' De Balzac

Dane Buson

Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
> to wear them. No question is saved his life.

More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
increased the radius of his head several inches.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Rick: "How can you close me up? On what grounds?"
Renault: "I'm shocked! Shocked! To find that gambling is going on here."
Croupier (handing money to Renault): "Your winnings, sir."
Renault: "Oh. Thank you very much." -- Casablanca

Dane Buson

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet. But I
>> agree that having to wear helmets does discourage people from riding
>> bikes. It makes it seem more dangerous than it is, and, incredibly,
>> people don't want to have to deal with helmet hair.
>
> The real question is whether a potential cyclist will be discouraged
> from riding a bicycle because he sees others wearing helmets and assumes
> that bicycling is inherently dangerous.
>
> Do people avoid driving cars because they see all the safety equipment
> added to a car, i.e. crumple zones, impact absorbing bumpers, seat
> belts, shoulder belts, and air bags all over the car (head, side,
> front)? Of course not. Do they believe that all that safety equipment is
> going to save them in a really horrific crash?

We've already determined that most drivers wouldn't give up their cars
if they had to wear *clown suits* in order to do it. It's not really
germane to the discussion considering most of the safety equipment is
passive and only used as line items in sales talk saying "Look how safe
our car is". The exception is the seat belt, and you know that we've
had to have comprehensive legistlative and police enforcement to get
them to wear that. People would still drive, just without the seatbelt.
Hell, some still do.

> Of course not. Do they forbid their kids from playing softball or
> baseball because the kid must wear a batting helmet to protect their
> head in the unlikely event of a wild high pitch? Of course not.

You obviously weren't paying attention to the histrionics over chest
pads in little league baseball some years ago. Because something like
three kids in the entire nation died (over some number of years), some
mothers wouldn't let their kids play unless the league came up with
chest pads for all the players IIRC.

> Cyclists wear helmets because they know that in the unlikely event of
> a head-impact crash they'll fare better with a helmet than without
> one, and they understand that such crashes can be beyond their control
> no matter how careful they are.

Exchange 'know' for 'told', add in a dash of groupthink (everyone else is
doing it), and of course a large measure of blissful ignorance of the
things that would make them safer. i.e., Cycle training, more cyclists
on the road, better enforcement of traffic laws, more difficult testing
for drivers.

> In reality, the bicycle helmet often encourages bicycling among many
> people because they mistakenly believe that wearing a helmet makes
> them invulnerable.

I've seen no evidence of that personally, in fact it just seems to me to
be one more reason for people not to do it. If nothing else a $40
helmet can be a *real* disincentive to the cash-poor (children,
students, migrant workers, low income).

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by
this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him."
-Jonathon Swift

Bill Sornson

Dane Buson wrote:
> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
>> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
>> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>
> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
> increased the radius of his head several inches.

{cough} Horseshit! {cough}

Bill "not saying it saved his life but the inverse speculation is just as
ridiculous" S.

Bill Sornson

Dane Buson wrote:
{snip ideological theorizing}

> If nothing else a $40
> helmet can be a *real* disincentive to the cash-poor

I just replaced the brand-new lid I was wearing when my tire blew out on a
high-speed turning descent last Thursday (subject of this thread).

It (a "Bell Solar") was on sale for $19.95 at Performance, less 10% off for
lunchtime special. Best twenty bucks I ever spent in my life.

Bill "rich is being whole" S.

catzz66

Dane Buson wrote:
> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
>> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
>> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>
> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
> increased the radius of his head several inches.
>

What appears to be more likely is that neither you nor beachrunner knows
anything for certain. It is not necessarily "more likely" that the
crashee wouldn't have hit his head at all. This wasn't a scientific
helmet test, it was just a wreck.

Dane Buson

Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
>>> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
>>> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
>>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>>
>> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
>> increased the radius of his head several inches.
>
> {cough} Horseshit! {cough}

By all means, let's not mince words. :-)

> Bill "not saying it saved his life but the inverse speculation is just as
> ridiculous" S.

Meh, it's pretty common for people to hit their heads on low hanging
things because they aren't used to the extra couple inches that are
added. I know I've whacked my head on doorways while wearing a helmet
that I never did without. And I *know* I've seen *multiple* posts in
this newsgroup attesting to the same thing. It's not a huge stretch to
imagine that someone might have missed a branch but for the helmet.

I would say my speculation is not ridiculous in fact, though I am not
promoting it as the only possibility.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
In Marseilles they make half the toilet soap we consume in America, but
the Marseillaise only have a vague theoretical idea of its use, which they
have obtained from books of travel. -- Mark Twain

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
>>> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
>>> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
>>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
>> increased the radius of his head several inches.
>
> {cough} Horseshit! {cough}
>
> Bill "not saying it saved his life but the inverse speculation is just as
> ridiculous" S.

Wait, maybe he was practicing "risk compensation" by raising his head
prematurely.

Dane Buson

catzz66 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low hanging
>>> limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb. His helmet
>>> was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet wearing friend
>>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>>
>> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet hadn't
>> increased the radius of his head several inches.
>
> What appears to be more likely is that neither you nor beachrunner knows
> anything for certain. It is not necessarily "more likely" that the
> crashee wouldn't have hit his head at all. This wasn't a scientific
> helmet test, it was just a wreck.

True enough, but when one makes statements like "No question is [sic]
saved his life.", I don't think it's unreasonable to interject another
possible scenario.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Excerpt from a conversation between a customer support person and a
customer working for a well-known military-affiliated research lab:

Support: "You're not our only customer, you know."
Customer: "But we're one of the few with tactical nuclear weapons."

Bill Sornson

Dane Buson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>> Beach Runner <LowHertz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My dad's life was saved. He put his head down going past low
>>>> hanging limbs, put his head back up, and slam, there was a limb.
>>>> His helmet was destroyed. The helmet convinced my non-helmet
>>>> wearing friend
>>>> to wear them. No question is saved his life.
>>>
>>> More likely he wouldn't have hit his head at all if the helmet
>>> hadn't increased the radius of his head several inches.

>> {cough} Horseshit! {cough}

> By all means, let's not mince words. :-)

{cough} OK {cough}

:-P

>> Bill "not saying it saved his life but the inverse speculation is
>> just as ridiculous" S.

> Meh, it's pretty common for people to hit their heads on low hanging
> things because they aren't used to the extra couple inches that are
> added. I know I've whacked my head on doorways while wearing a helmet
> that I never did without. And I *know* I've seen *multiple* posts in
> this newsgroup attesting to the same thing. It's not a huge stretch
> to imagine that someone might have missed a branch but for the helmet.
>
> I would say my speculation is not ridiculous in fact, though I am not
> promoting it as the only possibility.

I'd only offer what the person reported (still intact above, a good
indication that you're not a zealot): his dad ducked his head to miss a
number of branches, and then, thinking that he's cleared all the low-lying
stuff, raised his head to full upright and...BANG! Having done similar
myself, I can attest to seeing /major/ stars, and being pretty stiff and
sore the next day. (It wasn't a miscalculation of melon size; it was
mistaken behavior based on a faulty assumption -- something the AHZs know
all about.)

Fact remains, wearing a helmet can prevent head injuries ranging from minor
to pretty darned serious, as my recent experience attests. (Wanna see the
pics again?)

Bill "it's not /only/ about life and death" S.