Helmet saved my...

JCrowe

Bill Sornson wrote:
> JCrowe wrote:
>> 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.)

This issue has the same basic premise that the issue of whether or
not an individual chooses to listen to music while riding does. The
people favoring passage of laws infringing a rider's right to choose to
wear a bicycle helmet or listen to music while riding are, in essence,
implying that government has a legitimate power to tell the individual
what he can and cannot do to his or her body. Chilling.
>
> Bill "on the mend" S.
>
>


--
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:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> JCrowe wrote:
>>> 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.)
>
> This issue has the same basic premise that the issue of whether or
> not an individual chooses to listen to music while riding does. The
> people favoring passage of laws infringing a rider's right to choose
> to wear a bicycle helmet or listen to music while riding are, in
> essence, implying that government has a legitimate power to tell the
> individual what he can and cannot do to his or her body. Chilling.

So I'll assume you feel the same way about government regulating what and
where people can smoke, eat, drive, light their homes with, invest their
money, etc. etc. etc.?

I don't mind seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws, because people who
don't use those simple devices often end up costing everyone much money and
angst. The reason I don't favor MHLs for cyclists is because we're a
relatively small group. (And yes, I use headphones. Discreetly.)

B

JCrowe

Bill Sornson wrote:
> JCrowe wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> 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.)
>> This issue has the same basic premise that the issue of whether or
>> not an individual chooses to listen to music while riding does. The
>> people favoring passage of laws infringing a rider's right to choose
>> to wear a bicycle helmet or listen to music while riding are, in
>> essence, implying that government has a legitimate power to tell the
>> individual what he can and cannot do to his or her body. Chilling.
>
> So I'll assume you feel the same way about government regulating what and
> where people can smoke, eat, drive, light their homes with, invest their
> money, etc. etc. etc.?

Correct for the most part. Camel nose under the tent and all that....
>
> I don't mind seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws, because people who
> don't use those simple devices often end up costing everyone much money and
> angst. The reason I don't favor MHLs for cyclists is because we're a
> relatively small group. (And yes, I use headphones. Discreetly.)

This discussion has crossed out of relevance to bicycles, but the
issues with seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are the same. The fly in
the ointment for arguing in their favor is that individuals are
responsible for the results of the choices they make.....that
others should bear financial responsibility for peoples' choices of
self-endangerment is a warping of what people consider public good.
>
> B
>
>


--
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

Marz

On Jun 2, 10:39*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Marz wrote:
> > On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> ...noggin!
>
> > As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way to
> > recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
> > have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
> > This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
> > and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
> > damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
> > injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.
>
> My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my life"
> stories. *HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid prevented more than
> mere "bumps and scratches". *Judging by the huge main crack and numerous
> inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit the pavement pretty darned
> forcefully. *It's not inconceivable that my skull would have been fractured
> or I'd have been knocked unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp
> and even ear pieces.
>
> I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than once, and
> the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. *That this time its core
> completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that this impact was
> mmuch more than "superficial".
>
> The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. *I'll go by what I see and know.
>
> Bill S.

See, now you've gone off the deep end. There's nothing to show from
the damage to the helmet how much damage your head may have received.
Sounds like you hit the helmet at its side, the weakest point and you
didn't realize you even hit your head until some else pointed out the
damage to the helmet. If your head had hit the ground with enough
force to fracture your skull or be knocked unconscious you would have
known about, helmet or no helmet.

I agree though it may have saved you from lose of scalp and ear
pieces.

I hope the xrays show nothing’s wrong.

catzz66

Dane Buson wrote:
> 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.
>

I agree, but neither one is more likely. It's all just opinions, which
is okay.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 4, 12:59 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> JCrowe wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> JCrowe wrote:
> >>> 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.)
>
> > This issue has the same basic premise that the issue of whether or
> > not an individual chooses to listen to music while riding does. The
> > people favoring passage of laws infringing a rider's right to choose
> > to wear a bicycle helmet or listen to music while riding are, in
> > essence, implying that government has a legitimate power to tell the
> > individual what he can and cannot do to his or her body. Chilling.
>
> So I'll assume you feel the same way about government regulating what and
> where people can smoke, eat, drive, light their homes with, invest their
> money, etc. etc. etc.?
>
> I don't mind seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws, because people who
> don't use those simple devices often end up costing everyone much money and
> angst.

And therefore, you shouldn't mind diet laws and exercise laws, because
people who eat too much and exercise too little cost everyone much
more money and angst, right?

Is it time we passed laws to reduce the 750,000 annual American heart
disease deaths, and stopped overreacting to the mere 750 annual
bicycle deaths?

Or is there a chance we should let everyone make their own reasonable
choices about their personal health and that of their kids, so long as
it doesn't directly harm others?

- Frank Krygowski

landotter

On Jun 4, 8:59*am, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:39*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Marz wrote:
> > > On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> > >> ...noggin!
>
> > > As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way to
> > > recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
> > > have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
> > > This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
> > > and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
> > > damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
> > > injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.
>
> > My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my life"
> > stories. *HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid prevented morethan
> > mere "bumps and scratches". *Judging by the huge main crack and numerous
> > inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit the pavement pretty darned
> > forcefully. *It's not inconceivable that my skull would have been fractured
> > or I'd have been knocked unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp
> > and even ear pieces.
>
> > I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than once, and
> > the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. *That this time its core
> > completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that this impact was
> > mmuch more than "superficial".
>
> > The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. *I'll go by what I see and know.
>
> > Bill S.
>
> See, now you've gone off the deep end. There's nothing to show from
> the damage to the helmet how much damage your head may have received.
> Sounds like you hit the helmet at its side, the weakest point and you
> didn't realize you even hit your head until some else pointed out the
> damage to the helmet. If your head had hit the ground with enough
> force to fracture your skull or be knocked unconscious you would have
> known about, helmet or no helmet.
>

Bah, back in the day, we'll have just shook him awake, rinsed out
scrape with a bottle--if even, and if worse came to worse, stuck a
sock on there to keep the blood from dripping with a cycling cap on
top to keep it in place on the ride home. Grrrr. For $50 extra we stop
at the Humane Society for a cat scan! Meow?

Marz

On Jun 4, 9:46*am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:59*am, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 10:39*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> > > Marz wrote:
> > > > On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> > > >> ...noggin!
>
> > > > As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way to
> > > > recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
> > > > have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
> > > > This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
> > > > and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
> > > > damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
> > > > injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.
>
> > > My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my life"
> > > stories. *HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid prevented more than
> > > mere "bumps and scratches". *Judging by the huge main crack and numerous
> > > inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit the pavement pretty darned
> > > forcefully. *It's not inconceivable that my skull would have been fractured
> > > or I'd have been knocked unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp
> > > and even ear pieces.
>
> > > I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than once, and
> > > the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. *That this time its core
> > > completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that this impactwas
> > > mmuch more than "superficial".
>
> > > The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. *I'll go by what I see and know.
>
> > > Bill S.
>
> > See, now you've gone off the deep end. There's nothing to show from
> > the damage to the helmet how much damage your head may have received.
> > Sounds like you hit the helmet at its side, the weakest point and you
> > didn't realize you even hit your head until some else pointed out the
> > damage to the helmet. If your head had hit the ground with enough
> > force to fracture your skull or be knocked unconscious you would have
> > known about, helmet or no helmet.
>
> Bah, back in the day, we'll have just shook him awake, rinsed out
> scrape with a bottle--if even, and if worse came to worse, stuck a
> sock on there to keep the blood from dripping with a cycling cap on
> top to keep it in place on the ride home. Grrrr. For $50 extra we stop
> at the Humane Society for a cat scan! Meow?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Who's sock?

SMS

JCrowe wrote:

> This discussion has crossed out of relevance to bicycles, but the
> issues with seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are the same. The fly in
> the ointment for arguing in their favor is that individuals are
> responsible for the results of the choices they make.....that
> others should bear financial responsibility for peoples' choices of
> self-endangerment is a warping of what people consider public good.

Some states have waived the motorcycle helmet requirement for riders
that provide proof of medical insurance.

Personally I don't really like this approach because it singles out one
specific form of dangerous behavior that is permitted if the person
engaging in it can prove that they won't be a burden to others should
their behavior result in excessive medical costs.

landotter

On Jun 4, 9:52*am, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:46*am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:59*am, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 10:39*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> > > > Marz wrote:
> > > > > On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> > > > >> ...noggin!
>
> > > > > As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his wayto
> > > > > recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
> > > > > have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
> > > > > This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
> > > > > and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
> > > > > damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
> > > > > injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.
>
> > > > My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my life"
> > > > stories. *HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid prevented more than
> > > > mere "bumps and scratches". *Judging by the huge main crack and numerous
> > > > inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit the pavement pretty darned
> > > > forcefully. *It's not inconceivable that my skull would have been fractured
> > > > or I'd have been knocked unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp
> > > > and even ear pieces.
>
> > > > I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than once, and
> > > > the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. *That this time its core
> > > > completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that this impact was
> > > > mmuch more than "superficial".
>
> > > > The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. *I'll go by what I see and know.
>
> > > > Bill S.
>
> > > See, now you've gone off the deep end. There's nothing to show from
> > > the damage to the helmet how much damage your head may have received.
> > > Sounds like you hit the helmet at its side, the weakest point and you
> > > didn't realize you even hit your head until some else pointed out the
> > > damage to the helmet. If your head had hit the ground with enough
> > > force to fracture your skull or be knocked unconscious you would have
> > > known about, helmet or no helmet.
>
> > Bah, back in the day, we'll have just shook him awake, rinsed out
> > scrape with a bottle--if even, and if worse came to worse, stuck a
> > sock on there to keep the blood from dripping with a cycling cap on
> > top to keep it in place on the ride home. Grrrr. For $50 extra we stop
> > at the Humane Society for a cat scan! Meow?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Who's sock?


Sock's the thing on your head. Now now, that's Charlie to your right,
that's Sara over there, I'm Landotter. Just keep the direct pressure
on your head and don't go into the light--it's not grandpa calling
you, Jerry Falwell's just become a shapeshifter.

dgk

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 8:33 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>
>>
>> >I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be so strongly
>> >recommended, or even mandated, for an activity that generates fewer
>> >than 1% of the head injury fatalities in the US; and why they should
>> >_not_ be recommended for the activity that generates roughly 50% of
>> >those fatalities. IOW, be serious: Why bicyclists, why _not_
>> >motorists?
>>
>> >I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be recommended for
>> >an activity that causes 0.19 head injury deaths per million hours, but
>> >not one that causes 0.34 head injury deaths per million hours. IOW,
>> >be serious: why bicyclists, why _not_ pedestrians?
>>
>> >I also invite SMS to explain his frequent claim that mandating helmets
>> >does not reduce bicycling. I've listed citations or links to roughly
>> >12 different studies showing that they definitely do, yet SMS says "no
>> >studies show this." Be serious: Why haven't you read the studies?
>>
>> >In fact, I invite SMS to _any_ serious, factual discussion on this
>> >subject. My hopes are slim, though.
>>
>> >- Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet.
>
>I'm separating my replies, to deal with two topics.
>
>"dgk" says he doesn't agree with me on most of this. I'm curious,
>"dgk," about what factual points you disagree with.
>
>IOW, do you doubt that bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the head
>injury deaths in the US? Do you doubt that motor vehicle occupants
>are about half those fatalities? Or that simple falls around the home
>are about 40%?
>
>Do you have different numbers than I do on the number of head injury
>fatalities per hour for cyclists and for pedestrians? How about for
>motorists? Recall, my numbers show that cycling is NOT very dangerous
>per hour exposure.
>
>Do you have evidence that increasing helmet use has actually
>benefitted cyclists by preventing significant numbers of serious head
>injuries? Remember, my data shows that serious head injuries do not
>decline, per remaining rider - only that fewer people ride.
>
>I've repeatedly given citations for my statements. I can give them
>again, if you like.
>
>Admittedly, most people never think about these things in detail. The
>typical helmet wearing cyclist never reads much beyond the false
>propaganda saying "You could get killed!!!" and "85% benefit!!!"
>
>Have you read more, and found me to be wrong? Or are you just buying
>the propaganda without examining it?
>
>- Frank Krygowski


I think a lot of injuries, and more importantly, prevented injuries,
go unreported. I was biking through the park around dawn two years ago
when there was a loud WACK and something hit the helmet. It was a tree
branch that I never even saw. I went back to take a better look, and
it would have hit me somewhere in the forehead. I doubt I would have
ended up in the emergency room but it likely would have hurt quite a
bit and left a good bruise. It might have hit an eye though. My helmet
is a bit too roughed up to determine where it actually got hit.

I don't always wear a helmet; it depends on what I'm doing. For
standard commuting, 30 miles per day, I wear it. In winter, it doubles
by keeping my head warm. But for a week at Cape May, which is a very
bike friendly town, I don't find it necessary. In fact, no one wears a
helmet in Cape May even though all the bike rental places provide one.
I brink my bike, of course.

SMS

dgk wrote:

> I think a lot of injuries, and more importantly, prevented injuries,
> go unreported.

This is very true. This is one of the biggest issues with the injury
reports that already show such a large benefit from helmets--they don't
show the injuries that never happen because a helmet was worn, and they
don't show minor injuries that are unreported when they would have been
more major, and reported, injuries without a helmet. Helmet benefits are
vastly understated.

> I don't always wear a helmet; it depends on what I'm doing. For
> standard commuting, 30 miles per day, I wear it. In winter, it doubles
> by keeping my head warm. But for a week at Cape May, which is a very
> bike friendly town, I don't find it necessary. In fact, no one wears a
> helmet in Cape May even though all the bike rental places provide one.
> I brink my bike, of course.

Yes, there are definitely times where a helmet is probably not really
needed. I don't wear one when riding at relatively slow speeds in areas
I'm familiar with, with very little traffic. While commuting I'll
usually wear one, and on recreational rides with a lot of mountain
descents of course it's rare to see someone riding without a helmet.

Of course the AHZ's will come up with all sorts of bogus statistics and
falsehoods regarding injury rates. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people
seem to be falling for their propoganda.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 4, 11:43 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet.
>
> >I'm separating my replies, to deal with two topics.
>
> >"dgk" says he doesn't agree with me on most of this. I'm curious,
> >"dgk," about what factual points you disagree with.
>
> >IOW, do you doubt that bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the head
> >injury deaths in the US? Do you doubt that motor vehicle occupants
> >are about half those fatalities? Or that simple falls around the home
> >are about 40%?
>
> >Do you have different numbers than I do on the number of head injury
> >fatalities per hour for cyclists and for pedestrians? How about for
> >motorists? Recall, my numbers show that cycling is NOT very dangerous
> >per hour exposure.
>
> >Do you have evidence that increasing helmet use has actually
> >benefitted cyclists by preventing significant numbers of serious head
> >injuries? Remember, my data shows that serious head injuries do not
> >decline, per remaining rider - only that fewer people ride.
>
> >I've repeatedly given citations for my statements. I can give them
> >again, if you like.
>
> >Admittedly, most people never think about these things in detail. The
> >typical helmet wearing cyclist never reads much beyond the false
> >propaganda saying "You could get killed!!!" and "85% benefit!!!"
>
> >Have you read more, and found me to be wrong? Or are you just buying
> >the propaganda without examining it?
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> I think a lot of injuries, and more importantly, prevented injuries,
> go unreported.

Of course! And this is true for every other activity in the world -
especially the "prevented injuries" getting unreported. Can you
imagine the bureaucracy needed to handle every report of _every_
injury?

For example, consider my most significant head injury in the last 20
years: I was working in my garage and hit my head on the bow tip of
my inverted canoe, which was hanging from the garage ceiling. Who
would be interested in that tiny, bloody scratch and bump?

And what would you do with the anecdotes if I regularly wore a bike
helmet while working in my garage? The helmet would take up another
inch and bump the canoe probably every day, sometimes just as hard as
Bill Sornson's "saved my noggin" account.

But somehow, the helmet promoters know to ignore those sorts of
incidences, whether or not a helmet is present. But let the same
thing happen on a bike, and the pride of purchase jumps to the fore.
"Wow, was I smart to buy that essential piece of protective equipment,
because I'm _sure_ I'd be a vegetable without it! Why look, the decal
is torn!"

> I was biking through the park around dawn two years ago
> when there was a loud WACK and something hit the helmet. It was a tree
> branch that I never even saw. I went back to take a better look, and
> it would have hit me somewhere in the forehead. I doubt I would have
> ended up in the emergency room but it likely would have hurt quite a
> bit and left a good bruise. It might have hit an eye though. My helmet
> is a bit too roughed up to determine where it actually got hit.

Don't be so conservative! You need drama in your sales pitch! It
probably would have impaled your very brain, severing your spinal cord
on its way out the back!

BTW, you still haven't specified which of the facts I listed that you
disagree with, or given contrary data.

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Sornson

Marz wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:39 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Marz wrote:
>>> On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>> ...noggin!
>>
>>> As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way
>>> to recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I
>>> don't have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet
>>> worked. This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head
>>> from bumps and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or
>>> prevent brain damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent
>>> superficial injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.
>>
>> My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my
>> life" stories. HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid
>> prevented more than mere "bumps and scratches". Judging by the huge
>> main crack and numerous inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit
>> the pavement pretty darned forcefully. It's not inconceivable that
>> my skull would have been fractured or I'd have been knocked
>> unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp and even ear pieces.
>>
>> I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than
>> once, and the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. That this time
>> its core completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that
>> this impact was mmuch more than "superficial".
>>
>> The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. I'll go by what I see and
>> know.
>>
>> Bill S.
>
> See, now you've gone off the deep end. There's nothing to show from
> the damage to the helmet how much damage your head may have received.
> Sounds like you hit the helmet at its side, the weakest point and you
> didn't realize you even hit your head until some else pointed out the
> damage to the helmet. If your head had hit the ground with enough
> force to fracture your skull or be knocked unconscious you would have
> known about, helmet or no helmet.

You make my point for me. In a high-speed crash, one doesn't know what has
hit what until one gets up (or tries to). I didn't know my shoulder was
trashed until I attempted to use my right arm. I didn't know my head had
contacted the ground at all until someone told me it was obvious. THEN I
felt the damage to the outer shell, and after that discovered that the core
had not just cracked in one place but many. If that's not an indication
that my head struck the pavement with quite a bit of force, then I'd like to
borrow some of your pharmaceuticals.

Just yesterday I bought the exact same lid as a replacement (19 bucks out
the door), and in setting up the straps and mirror discovered that the
sunglasses I'd been wearing were all scraped up on the right side (rubber
frame pad thing was completely torn up). I had no idea that my scalp/face
had come that close to contact. Without the helmet, it's clear that the
whole right side of my head would have been pretty messed up (granted, to an
unknown degree).

> I agree though it may have saved you from lose of scalp and ear
> pieces.

Even if /just/ that, why deride the use of a helmet?

> I hope the xrays show nothing’s wrong.

Thanks. It hurts a lot today -- naturally felt decent while at the doc's --
so even if xrays are neg (which I expect) I'm pretty sure something's torn
or at least strained pretty damned bad. Gonna try to do a yoga class in an
hour, hiding in the back so no one sees me cry...

Mucho Macho Me