I fell off at Old St Roundabout - thank god for Helmet!

Clever Pun

dondare wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

I had an incident on my brompton on friday night I was heading home and a car with no lights started off ahead of me I assumed it was going straight on so I slowed and moved to the right... it did a U'turn I did a flip over it's sodding bonnet, bike was fine woman driver was shaken as was I.... both at fault no real damage done at the end of the day, I took their number just in case. I'm just too English/british after something like that I just want to head off and lick my wounds rather than make any sort of thing about it. a few people coam over to see if I was alright and everyone was very nice etc etc

bumped my head with no helmet and got a bruise... maybe if I'd been wearing one the strap would have caught on something and twisted my neck to breaking point????

If you'd been wearing a helmet then it would have shattered into three pieces and you'd be relating this as a "helmet saved my life" story. Either that or the massive rotational forces would have turned your brain back-to-front and you'd be in no fit state to relate anything.

Possibly.

not wearing a helmet saved my life!!!!

victor ludorum

Jakey57 wrote:

The main reason i fell with such a bump? - the bike is a single speed, so when i was standing on the pedals and the chain came off it had nowhere to get jammed so i became a pasenger and hit the deck...HARD

The bike shop have been very helpfull and understood my posistion. And have offerd me a discount on a new bike.

I've run a single speed for over a year and the chain has never come off once. For god's sake take it to a different shop who just might know what they are doing.

Another dumb question. Is the problem possibly that your chain is slacking while you're riding it? If you have horizontal dropouts the rear wheel can slip forwards in use and loosen the chain tension. That would be something a bikeshop might fix each time you go in, only for it to happen again soon afterwards.

If you have horizontal dropouts you might benefit from using something like a surly tuggnut to keep the wheel in position.
http://www.surlybikes.com/parts/tuggnut_pop.html

If you have vertical/semi vertical and it's chain length that's the problem, you might benefit from a singulator type device, instead.
http://www.sidewayscycles.co.uk/products/index.php?id=465&clid=24

If that's the problem though, I would have expected them to have told you. I'm with El Presidente on this one. If it isn't something wild and exotic (and highly unlikely) like a twisted frame causing the problem, then it should be solvable by something far cheaper than buying a new bike. If they can't/won't do it, go to another bike shop rather than give them more money.

el_presidente

other possible causes:

bent chainring (or broken tooth/teeth)
stiff link on chain
wheel not straight in dropouts


suggest you ask your so-called bikeshop if they have looked for all these

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

Helmets can WORK with any speed accident. So can not wearing a helmet.

LOL! Precisely what does not wearing a helmet work as/at?? Are you actually saying "your skull can work to protect your brain"?

I'm sorry; I forgot how many cars you've collided with. Let's correct what we'd take as a deliberate misquote if you weren't a frequent flyer:

Helmets can WORK with any speed accident. So can not wearing a helmet. They (generally) HELP with only low speed ones because that's an accepted design limit - there's no other way to keep the weight within acceptable limits

I.e. "work" means survive without brain damage or death. Glad to help you out! And as a free bonus tip: ride with your eyes open and remember that car boots are not as soft as your friends at the pub told you!

Cadel Evans thinks helmets work at speeds not to be sniffed at. What's your view on his recent accident?

If Cadel Evans is an engineer who tests helmets, I'm interested. Otherwise its more muppet-talk. I'd guess that he's a cyclist and that his opinion is worth as much as that the champion body builders who credit their bicep development to prayer. Lab animals don't get asked to write papers...

meanwhile

jedster wrote:

SO - they can't fix your chain problem, instead of paying them say £20 to fix it properly, you'll pay them £300+ for a new bike that they probably won't set up right either. Who is this shop??

I've run a single speed for over a year and the chain has never come off once. For god's sake take it to a different shop who just might know what they are doing.

Absolutely

1. What I said already about it being nothing but muppetry to keep on going to the same shop when they keep putting your life in danger. Yes, yes, I'm being judgmental and nasty - but you are going to kill yourself if you keep behaving this way. Putting the correct label on it in your mind will stop you from repeating it. Next time, be nasty and argue with the nice people in the LBS. If you really can't live without paying a lot of money to be abused and hurt, find a professional who can do the job without risking killing you - one may well advertise her services on postcards in a phone box near you if you live in London.

2. If you have doubts about a bike stay away from especially dangerous maneouvres - like in this case standing on the pedals on a bike which keeps throwing its chain.

3. BUY YOUR NEW BIKE FROM A DIFFERENT SHOP. PLEASE.

4. See a lawyer about this accident. Spen666 will recommend one if you ask him nicely. You should be due several thousand compensation imo, assuming the judge isn't a Darwin Awards fan.

meanwhile

Clever Pun wrote:

fine woman driver

I say - that's a bit sexist! Did you get her number?

batch78

I'm confused now, are we telling Cadel he could have easily survived without a helmet or not? 30mph in the tour is not a muppet crash, yet he does NOT have rotational injuries, he does NOT have a snapped neck and he sure as hell ISN'T dead. This kind of puts a dent in the helmets are useless at high speed argument, unless you still deem 30mph slow.

The only muppet crash, in my eyes, is one where injury to the head could have been prevented and wasn't.

I'm all for freedom of choice, helmets should not be compulsory, but please stop with the "helmets will kill you in high speed accidents" line, at best its misinformation.

biondino

Cadel is a one-off example and can't be taken as any kind of meaningful sample size. However, I suggest that his accident reproduced the traumas involved in crashing a bike just as effectively as anyone in a lab can manage (with 100% success, I'd wager), and he clearly felt - in a way few crash test dummies are able to express - that the helmet had made a positive difference to his experience.

Also, helmets won't kill you in high speed accidents, the accident will. You'll also be killed in high speed accidents in you're not wearing a helmet. The only question is how big and how statistically significant is the chance of suffering a helmet-augmented injury compared to the helmet either proving neutral or having a positive effect in a non-fatal accident above 12mph? My assertion is that a tiny, tiny number of accidents will result in rotational brain injury CAUSED BY THE HELMET yet meanwhile still bases his entire argument on this.

p.s. meanwhile, 1) I wasn't misquoting you and 2) your "defence" of the quote is meaningless. Suck up the fact that you said a dumb thing, then you can carry on your campaign of misinformation.

dondare

The benefits of helmets have not been conclusively proved to everyone's satisfaction.
Cycle helmets are not designed to give very high levels of protection.
Cyclists have survived serious spills without them.
There are arguments that in some types of accidents helmets could amplify some of the forces that cause injury.
Let us never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

MrBlond

If this is a troll it's brilliant

dondare

I use a different account when I'm trolling.

el_presidente

dondare wrote:

I use a different account when I'm trolling.

Hi SPEN!! *waves*

robmanic1

What's all this got to do with helmets?



D'oh!

MrBlond

Sorry, meant the original post

always_tyred

There are known knowns and known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns.
Confusecius said that, I think.

farrell

meanwhile wrote:

(It makes your hair fall off in the end.)

:shock: ...so will it grow back if you don't wear one.



.....the soreness will ease but glad you are OK jakeyFiveSeven.


Definitely get a different mechanic to look at the drivetrain as you need to be confident on those pedals.

Clever Pun

meanwhile wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

fine woman driver

I say - that's a bit sexist! Did you get her number?

Yes... yes I did

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

There are known knowns and known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns.
Confusecius said that, I think.

It sounds pretty Rum to me...

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

Cadel is a one-off example and can't be taken as any kind of meaningful sample size. However, I suggest that his accident reproduced the traumas involved in crashing a bike just as effectively as anyone in a lab can manage (with 100% success, I'd wager), and he clearly felt - in a way few crash test dummies are able to express - that the helmet had made a positive difference to his experience.

You are correct in saying that crash test dummies are unable to feel. As for the rest of it, nothing is more common than the placebo effect. People thought that mediaeval medicine worked. Today others still believe in voodoo, homeopathy and cure by televangelist.

Also, helmets won't kill you in high speed accidents, the accident will.

This is meaninglessly vague. If you're saying that there is no such thing as an accident where you would die with a helmet but not without one, you're probably wrong.

You'll also be killed in high speed accidents in you're not wearing a helmet.

Then I must be a zombie! I got side slammed by a car in San Francisco at well above helmet speeds while Reagan was president.

The only question is how big and how statistically significant is the chance of suffering a helmet-augmented injury compared to the helmet either proving neutral or having a positive effect in a non-fatal accident above 12mph?

Actually, that's not "the only question". The questions are:

- How big a positive effect can a helmet have, given that their engineering means that they cushion only trivial impacts, and fail utterly in moderate and severe ones?

- What extra, possibly under-researched, risks does helmet wearing carry? Loss of balance, changes in behaviour from other road users?

- For each rider, how will wearing a helmet help/hinder him or her?

My assertion is that a tiny, tiny number of accidents will result in rotational brain injury CAUSED BY THE HELMET yet meanwhile still bases his entire argument on this.

No, I don't. You've missed the most important point.

For me, cycling isn't that dangerous. The sort of accidents that you have do not happen to me. The sort of accidents that I do have to worry about are ones where a helmet won't help enough to be worth considering and may hinder.

I might as well wear a parachute or life vest while riding as wear a helmet, for all the good I should rationally expect from it - because I'm less at risk per hour of bike riding than the average motorist is per hour of driving, and the accidents that I should worry about involve cars, and bike helmets are useless or worse in 2VAs.

Cycling and driving come out about the same in risk per hour for average users, and risk falls by something like a factor of four with experience for cycling; it would make more sense for me to wear a helmet in a car (albeit a more effective one than a bike helmet) than while cycling.

You should, otoh, should wear a helmet. For each others the decision should be a rational one, based on knowledge of our past behaviour, current environment, accident statistics, and helmet engineering. Helmets are extremely useful to the sort of accidents you seem to have with a very high frequency - you should probably buy them in bulk, or at least lay in a supply from Wilkinsons while they're selling decent ones at £6.

p.s. meanwhile, 1) I wasn't misquoting you and 2) your "defence" of the quote is meaningless. Suck up the fact that you said a dumb thing, then you can carry on your campaign of misinformation.

The misquoted version was certainly dumb. But I'm willing to consider that the misquote was an honest example of your metal processes.

Once again: a helmet "works" if it reduces the chances of injury or death; people routinely survive accidents cycle accidents without them; therefore your argument that anyone who lives through an accident wearing a helmet proves that they "work" is idiotic. Exactly the same argument would "prove" that socks "work" to prevent neurological damage in bike accidents - lots of people wear socks, have bike accidents, and then don't get brain damage. So any claim that socks prevent brain damage is true by the Bio test...

That you will be unable to understand this argument is a strong indicator that you should wear a helmet. Part of cycling safely is a rational process of risk management, which seems to be beyond you. You've probably never spent a single hour researching accident statistics and re-planning your riding style accordingly, for instance. You understand nothing about the basic handling characteristics of the machine you ride - less than nothing, because your head is probably full of "everyone knows" and marketing blurb. I only wish that I could persuade you to wear body armour and a motorcylist's helmet, rather than relying on a thin layer of cranial packing foam to protect your life...

always_tyred

Leeches - very effective medieval medicine.

Drilling holes in skull - some peasants say it helps, some say it actually makes the risk of incurring rotational brain injury worse.

More study is required.

nwallace

Doesn't have the crash I wanted but:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tEhBsMWPg ... re=related

Particularly on 3 mins.