Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On 4/4/2025 5:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:>
Here are a few points on which nearly everyone can agree:
For minor spills, a helmet is likely to prevent scalp road rash or minor
scalp lacerations. Since scalp wounds bleed impressively, this would
also present less drama to bystanders.
For very high force impacts, such as a direct hit at speed by something
of significant mass (train, truck, auto, Harley), a helmet, or anything
really, is unlikely to be effective in preventing a fatality. Sadly, we
see these deaths regularly (just not daily).
For intermediate impacts, which are most bicycle crashes, both solo and
with vehicles mating in traffic, helmets may and likely would at least
mitigate or possibly prevent injury.
end of kumbaya segment.
Despite general agreement, each individual rider makes his own
assessment of crash incidence and intensity probabilities, frequently
taking into consideration prior riding experience(s), his own real or
perceived awareness and handling skills, reports of other riders'
experiences, reported overall data, urban myths, gossip, opinions of
fellow riders, USCF/UCI policy, on and on.
I agree with a lot of that. (Kumbaya!) But not all. And I agree with
only a little of the final paragraph.
>
Among the many, many riders I know, I don't see much rational
assessment. Almost all of them have a crash experience of zero, meaning
their awareness and handling skills have always been adequate for their
chosen riding conditions. They have roughly zero knowledge of overall
data. They may have heard of a crash or two in which a helmet was
claimed to have helped, but we can't really know that's true about any
given crash.
>
Instead of rational assessment, their judgment is based entirely on "Of
course, you should wear a helmet every time you ride. You _could_ crash!
And almost everyone else wears a helmet, so why be different?"
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.