Matt White crashed into truck -- no helmet?

Keith A · #1 06-09-2005, 09:12 AM

I just read the story about Matt White (Cofidis) crashing into the back of a semi truck that stopped suddenly in front of him. It doesn't say it in the article, but it appears to me (based on his injury) that he was not wearing a helmet. It just doesn't make sense to me why anyone would not wear a helmet -- especially when riding in traffic and if your career depending on your physical health. He was lucky that the injuries weren't too serious as it could have been much worse.

flydhest · #2 06-09-2005, 09:38 AM

Not to re-open the helmet debate (ok, so it is, but I really like and respect Keith, so I don't think it will do any harm), but wouldn't your logic apply to the question, "why would anyone ride in traffic if their career depended on their health?"

Why would they take car rides that are unnecessary? Eat oysters or unpasteurized cheese?

So, the article doesn't say if he had a helmet on or not, but helmet wearing is only one of many, many risk-mitigating choices we can make. I don't even think it's in the top ten. The fact that he walked to a bar and got stitches without anesthetic suggests to me that the head injury was essentially a nuisance. His choice (assuming he wasn't wearing a helmet) is one nuisance that he'll definitely have versus another (albeit a bit larger) nuisance that he may or may not have. This is one event out of how many hours of riding for him? The helmet (that he may or may not have been wearing) wouldn't have helped his shoulder at all.

William · #3 06-09-2005, 09:49 AM

A helmet betters your odds of avoiding serious head injuries. Whether one chooses to take advantage of those increased odds is up to the individual. Considering the inherent risks of cycling, and the nature of the game that we play out there with the motoring public, I'll partake of the upped percentages.

As for your preference? Do as you like.

William

Keith A · #4 06-09-2005, 10:07 AM

flydhest -- I knew that by posting this it might possibly open the helmet debate. But with today's helmets being so light, cool, and comfortable, this just seems like a no-brainer to me.

We all take risks in our everyday life -- just getting in the car as you mentioned. But I choose to put on a seatbelt when doing so, as to hopefully reduce any injuries that would come from an accident. I recognize that Mr. White is a professional cyclist and that the amount of hours he spends on a bike far exceed my own. So for him, any nuisance caused by wearing a helmet would be multiplied -- but by the same token, the possibility of him being involved in an accident on his bike are also increased because of the amount of time he spends in the saddle.

Most of the activities I enjoy in life have a higher risk factor (cycling, surfing, skateboarding, rock climbing). This doesn't stop me from participating, but I do my best to reduce the possibility and severity of injury. Having blown out my ACL while skateboarding, I certainly know what it is like to have sports related injury and I can say that I wouldn't want to go through that again!

Bottom line is that a helmet won�t prevent many injuries that occur on a bike, but they certainly can help reduce any head trauma and for that reason I choose to wear one when I ride.

Sandy · #5 06-09-2005, 10:23 AM

It is foolish for me to debate with you the value or lack of value of riding with a helmet, as you and I certainly will never agree, undoubtedly.

I will only make 2 statements:

1. No matter what factors may contribute to or not contribute to a cycling accident occurring, and no matter what the probability ot these factors are of occurrring for a given person, the FACT IS THAT ONCE AN ACCIDENT IS HAPPENING THE PROBABILITY OF SERIOUS HEAD TRAUMA IS GREATLY REDUCED IF ONE IS WEARING A HELMET, PERIOD (UNDERSTANDING THE PERIPHEAL COMMENT THAT YOU MIGHT GIVE THAT OFTEN THE HEAD IS NOT INVOLVED).

2. There were 3 PPTC (Potomac Pedaler Touring Club, a cycling club that I belong to) accidents in 4 days, in which 2 individuals were taken by ambulance to the hospital, and one died as result of the accident. I witnessed one of the accidents, and the helmet of that cyclist was severely damaged in at least 3 places. He survived, with no complaints, at the time of the accident, of a head injury, but had other obvious significant injuries.

As they say often in the forum, after making a statement, flame away, but to me A CYCLIST IS REMARKABLY FOOLISH IF HE DOES NOT WEAR A HELMET EACH AND EVERY RIDE. Please, no play on the word foolish, Flydhest, as I am not saying that a person is a fool or is a foolish person, but for this particular application, at this particular time, I humbly believe that the individual not using a helmet is both foolish and acting irresponsibly.

Let the flames come.

Smoldering Smoking STill Safety Serotta Sandy

flydhest · #6 06-09-2005, 10:28 AM

Keith (and I'm glad you realize I'm not trying to be unnecessarily antagonistic) I see your point and I engage in many of the same sorts of activities. I think one thing that gets missed a lot is that one can't just say "pros ride a lot more, so their probability of having a crash is a lot higher." I know and ride with many people who are poor bike handlers, don't pay attention to traffice, can't hold a straight line, etc. For these people, two hours of cycling is dramatically more likely to end in an accident than two thousand hours of cycling for a pro who knows what they're doing.

My other point is that I don't see why helmets are the risk-mitigating device that gets people (not you, you were eloquent) so stirred up and irrational in their denunciation of those who don't use them. Head trauma is such a low-probability event for so many cyclists. I know far more people who have gone down and scraped up skin very badly. I typically ride without gloves (although after the soupy ride in North Carolina where my hands were dripping, I might change back) and yet no one says things like "you're crazy, you could get a serious wound on your hands from a fall and that could get infected." Much, much higher probability event and, even weighted by the relative seriousness of the respective injuries, it seems like a more pressing problem, and yet no one thinks twice about that sort of thing.

Sandy,

You're almost making my point for me. I would agree with you that people who ride on club rides like that probably ought to wear a helmet. I've been on a couple of PPTC rides and they scare me. A lot of the riders flat out suck as cyclists and bike handlers (I'm not talking about speed here.)

Why is it more foolish for a very experienced cyclist who knows how to control a bike and (more importantly) how to pay attention to what's going on around him/her not to wear a helmet than, for example, for a person with bad bike handling skills and low awareness to go no a group ride at all, even wearing a helmet?

Oh, and you really, really, really, need to review probability and statistics. I'm teaching it now at Duke, I can send you my class notes.

Sandy · #7 06-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Not the risk-mitigating device, prior to an accident. It won't help at all in preventing one, nor does it any way change the odds for a particular person in having one. BUT, DURING THE ACCIDENT, A HELMET DOES HELP SUBSTANTIALLY IN SAVING LIVES. Do you disagree wth that? How many cyclists do you know that have never had a cycling accident, especially those having done substantial cycling.

Your approach is more of a mathematical expectaion statistical arguement, as a funtion of weighted expectations for a given event occurring for a given individual. MATHEMATICS DOESN'T HELP DURING A CYCLING ACCIDENT. HELMETS DO.

The key is during the accident and not before. I certainly hope that you don't think that most serious recreational or racers don't have cycling accidents.

I haven't finished packing. I have to go and pack and go to Saratoga Springs. I challenged Ron Keifel to a long road race. I plan to win. I just hope that my M3 doesn't run out of gas.

Irationally yours,

Safety Sandy

PS- I love you big fellow. We just don't agree here. Don't agree, big time. Would you want the Doctor to go on a ride without a helmet???

weisan · #8 06-09-2005, 10:56 AM

Hey guys, save your breath on fly-pal for now. He promised to drop by the next time he's in Texas visiting relatives. When he's here, I will put him through a battery of crash tests sanctioned by NTSHA. That should settle the matter once and for all. I would even assign him with a "crash rating" before he leaves

flydhest · #9 06-09-2005, 10:56 AM

Sandy,

You're not making sense, but I think you realize that. I'd be perfectly fine with the Doctor riding without a helmet if she was on a closed road with no motor traffic and very limited other traffic. But this example, again, is only making my point.

I'm going to carry around an elephant gun while walking through the Park. During an attack by a rogue elephant, elephant guns are very, very helpful. They save human lives. That is DURING THE ELEPHANT ATTACK and isn't that really all we need to think about? What happens during the time that the elephant is attacking you? Not what happens before, not how likely it is is to happen, not whether or not we could have avoided it, just what happens during the attack.

Why are you driving to Saratoga Springs? During a car accident on the highway, the safest place to be is at home, not on the highway. Stay home, sit on the couch. Not being on the highway saves lives.

Sandy · #10 06-09-2005, 11:01 AM

I am not an intellectual giant. But I did teach a probability and statistics course in high school, and a teacher I had in graduate school wanted me to get a PhD in that area.

Your comments about me needing to review my probability and statistics are not very well received. Too condescending for me.

Forget about the club riders. Just consider non-club riders. Just consider pro riders. How many of either category have not had one cycling accident? Two cycling accidents? Three accidents? Give me your best mathematical guess? I witnessed you having an accident. I would say that you were very fortunate that you had a helmet. You would say that you never hit your head, only your shoulder and side. Different perspective. Who in Smiley's group have never had cycling accidents? I don't know, but I would bet none, as in ZERO. I know that you, Serotta Sandy, and Spectrum Bob have had significant ones. I bet all the others have too.

Sandy

Ozz · #11 06-09-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith A

...But with today's helmets being so light, cool, and comfortable, this just seems like a no-brainer to me....

that's a good one!

Snipped Fly: "Head trauma is such a low-probability event for so many cyclists. I know far more people who have gone down and scraped up skin very badly."

I don't know, nor have heard of anyone dying from road-rash. Most of what a I hear about are the head injuries...with few good results coming from it.

Head trauma may be a "low probability event" for most of us, but if you do go down (accidents happen no matter how good you are at riding), the probability goes up substantially.

You're the number cruncher....of cyclists that do get injured, how many (not wearing helmets) have head trauma? Does anyone even keep these stats?

This is an old discussion...adults can make their own decisions.

Stay safe.

weisan · #12 06-09-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozz

adults can make their own decisions.

But Ozz-pal, you don't understand, we are not dealing with adults here, we are talking about "crash dummies" (no puns intended)...used in NTSHA sanctioned laboratory-controlled-environment, crash tests with a gazillion cameras pointing at the subject of interest. Do you know they can measure every stress point encountered by the body in split seconds during the crash. Oh by the way, nobody dies during these tests.

Sandy · #13 06-09-2005, 11:10 AM

My helicopter, personal stealth fighter/bomber, and my nuclear powered attack submarine are all in for repairs. My chauffeur ran off with Kevan. I hope that they will be happy.

"You're not making sense, but I think that you realize that." I disagree with both statements. Disagreeing with you does not automatically put one into a category of not making sense. I hope that statement makes sense. We each have our own personal logical base. Please respect mine.

Really time for me to go. I am running late, and this thread is not evolving in a very friendly or respectful one, im my humble, senseless, and irrational opinion.

STill Safety Sandy

Ozz · #14 06-09-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weisan

But Ozz-pal, you don't understand, we are not dealing with adults here, we are talking about "crash dummies" (no puns intended)...used in NTSHA sanctioned laboratory-controlled-environment, crash tests with a gazillion cameras pointing at the subject of interest. Do you know they can measure every stress point encountered by the body in split seconds during the crash. Oh by the way, nobody dies during these tests.

Wow! Sounds fun...if nobody dies, sign me up!

bcm119 · #15 06-09-2005, 11:23 AM

I can see Fly's point very clearly. I am amazed on a daily basis at the unnecessary risks people (in general) take. If you can see your life in terms of an almost infinite number of chances to die, each with a varying likelihood of occuring, wearing a helmet becomes lost in the numbers. The highway example is a good one: people drive at high speed on crowded freeways for extremely trivial reasons without any criticism of their actions, yet those who ride bikes without helmets are seen as foolish risk takers.
When you start calculating risk in your daily life, helmet-wearing becomes exposed as an over-hyped precaution. However, I wear a helmet, of course, because it makes me feel safer.