Frank Krygowski said:Steve Palincsar said:
Frank Krygowski said:Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by _far_
the biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour basis,
it's not a serious head injury risk.
It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one
on, or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell
yes, I want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.
Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap: all irrelevant.
Sorry, I think the level of danger is relevant.
I think I'm a better judge of the danger I was in during that crash than you. It was, after all, my
body hitting the deck, not yours. And the plain simple fact is, had I followed your advice rather
than mine on 1 April, I'd have incurred injuries that I thankfully avoided, and that I was quite
happy to have avoided.
Quoted message said:As one extreme example: a certain author wrote a book on the public's perception of risk a few
years ago. In it, this author talked about the many risks he took, personally, including
backpacking in extreme terrain where, as he put it, one misstep to either side would mean
certain death.
We disagree utterly. I care absolutely nothing for discussions of the public's perception of risk
vis a vis cycling, and it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, what _is_ relevant
is this: if you crash, would you be better off with, or without that helmet?
You think statistical information about risk level will somehow keep you from having an accident; in
the case of the accident I had on 1 April, the statistical chance of that accident was very low
indeed. In over 30 years of cycling I've never had a front tire blow out at the bead the way this
one did; and I've never had a sudden and complete loss of front end stability the way I did that
day. I never once augered into the ground the way I did that day. I've had plenty of rear BAM!
blowouts, always from the tire jumping off the rim, and never suffered a total loss of control.
So the crash was as unlikely as hell. Did it happen? Trust me, it happened. Was I "ready" for it?
Only in the sense that since it was chilly I had on a pretty thick long-sleeve shirt under my
jersey and a pair of tights on my legs; and because I always wear them, I had a helmet and cycling
gloves on.
Quoted message said:It seems obvious to me that a rational decision on protective equipment would involve a rational
assessment of risk. If two activities have similar risks of a certain injury, that tends to
indicate similar levels of protection should be considered. Of course, level of risk is not the
_only_ criterion, but it's a fundamental one.
How do we assess level or risk? One good way is to compare to levels of risk of other activities.
With bike head injuries, that's not done. People commonly say they want protection against _any_
possibility of a head injury - but only when they're on a bike! They ignore 99+% of the "serious
head injury" problem, yet demonize bicycling's tiny contribution.
It's anti-cycling.
Nonsense. I'm not demonizing anything. Even though my personal safety record is quite good, much
better than average, I have no illusions of personal invulnerability, and I realize that if I'm
moving along at something like 15 mph -- nothing fast, just ordinary cruising -- and something goes
wrong, I'm probably going to hit the deck at a speed fast enough to hurt when I go down.
Mostly, the sort of things I've had happen, or have seen happen, are pretty common, painful and
inconvenient but not particularly serious: road rash, broken clavicle. Not really threatening, and
not much you can do to protect against them other than common sense stuff like don't ride without a
shirt, don't get in pace lines with people you don't know - ordinary road sense. About the only
really nasty thing that can easily turn something like this very serious is when you manage to smack
your head on the pavement, maybe drag it along for a bit. And this you can do something about, at
modest financial cost and no cost of inconvenience or discomfort.
So why wouldn't you want to? And why would you waste your time worrying about relative risk in other
activities in life that have no relationship to this sport?
OK, you don't think it's dangerous enough. Fine - it's your head, and good luck to you. But I'll bet
if it'd been you rather than me coming off 14th St Bridge on the bike path at about quarter to 5 on
the 1st of April, you'd be sorry you made that choice. I made a different choice, and make no
mistake, I'm happy as can be.