Biking

I would like to start biking to work -  15K one way or so.

Does anyone have any suggestions or tips on getting started?

(I live in an urban city)

thanks

Original Post by risza:

I DID IT~~!! I biked to work today. And I loved it! it took 52 minutes ( lots of traffic, and first time being on a bike in a llooooooooonnngg time!!)

I now have to work 12 hours, and bike home! good thing traffic will be light at 6:00 am!!

 

 

Congrats! How was the ride back? What bike did you end up getting?

UD

The ride home in the morning was fantastic, mostly downhill compaired to on the way to work. My garmin clocked me at 10k on the dot.

Its a Trek 3700 hardtail, for commuting and leisurely mountain-biking. !  I am so into it, although I have a lot to learn about gears, and going off and on high curbs. The kid who sold it to me, really didn't explain much :(   I guess I just have to teach myself and learn as I go.

Not really ideal for 30k round trip commute, but can be improved by putting slick tires on it and locking front suspension.

UD

Like I said, the helmet debate rages on!!!

Good on you for completing your first ride, you'll now look forward to going to work knowing your fitter and healthier.  Welll done!

amethyst girl--touch wood

i cant believe anyone would contemplate Not wearing a helmet, urban area or not. jeez.

I think its important to have a comfy bike seat. Seriously thas a long ride to be sore there are other inportatn things of course but a sore butt after riding sucks

That's great that you've done your first ride.  Congratulations and happy riding.

Original Post by melkor:

We have a name for people who don't wear helmets while biking.

 

Organ donors.

That's cute, but, sadly for the helmet zealots, there is no available evidence that helmet use reduces bicycle fatality rates.  No geographical region that has mandated helmet use has experienced a decrease in death rates, and the FARS data doesn't track helmet use or non-use versus fatal head injuries for bicyclists (and I looked very hard for that information, let me tell you, as I couldn't believe it myself).

I am a motorcycle helmet proselyte, knowing personally of the saves that such helmets have provided.  I also wear a bicycle helmet, more as "part of the uniform" than anything else, and because it is required in any event in which I participate.  However, knowing the vast differences in testing between motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets (yes, I've bothered to read the standards), I do not delude myself that the latter are any sort of magic talismans.  They simply come nowhere even close to being able to offer the protection that a motorcycle helmet offers, and you wouldn't be able to stand wearing one if it could (due to weight and lack of ventilation).

No, "Uncle Fred" stories from people who smashed their helmets to bits and then swear that the helmet saved them are NOT convincing:  a helmet that comes apart during impact is considered a FAILURE during testing.  I see no reason to consider it otherwise in a real-world spill.

A couple of years ago, a popular guy in the Pittsburgh area smacked into the side of a car at 40mph and died from his injuries.  The first thing the crowd of online simpletons asked was, "Was he wearing a helmet?"

/me shakes head sadly at the astounding lack of critical thought such a question reveals.

A (HEAVILY-VENTED) BEER COOLER WITH A FASTEX BUCKLE IS NOT A MAGIC TALISMAN THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM ALL HARM.

Original Post by behanna:

No, "Uncle Fred" stories from people who smashed their helmets to bits and then swear that the helmet saved them are NOT convincing: 

But, stories about people who had their lives saved by wearing motorcycle helmets are convincing?

Original Post by behanna:

a helmet that comes apart during impact is considered a FAILURE during testing.  I see no reason to consider it otherwise in a real-world spill.

It might be considered a failure during testing, but if the helmet comes apart in the real world and the skull stays intake it get's marked down as a success in my book. 

risza-Congrats on the ride. I am road biking now too and it is awesome.

So does anyone know what the odds are of dying while road biking? Like if I were going to get life insurance am I now considered a greater risk? I am only half kidding about this.

Somehow I missed the fearless gene.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by behanna:

No, "Uncle Fred" stories from people who smashed their helmets to bits and then swear that the helmet saved them are NOT convincing:

But, stories about people who had their lives saved by wearing motorcycle helmets are convincing?

Original Post by behanna:

a helmet that comes apart during impact is considered a FAILURE during testing. I see no reason to consider it otherwise in a real-world spill.

It might be considered a failure during testing, but if the helmet comes apart in the real world and the skull stays intake it get's marked down as a success in my book.

When someone shows me a motorcycle helmet that has been rashed to hell and gone, and their head is not rashed and they still have a face and all of their teeth, yes, that's convincing.  When someone shows me a motorcycle helmet whose shell has delaminated, but their skull did not, yes, that's convincing, given that such is in fact the intended method for a motorcycle helmet to protect a skull.  When Harry Hurt goes to the trouble to do an exhaustive survey of motorcycle accident reports and finds that helmeted riders fared better than unhelmeted riders, that's actual data.  There is no similar body of work for bicycle helmets, unless you can explain away the glaring problems with the Harborview studies.

I don't know how to respond to a remark like your last one.  When dealing with people who wish to ignore science, and who refuse to educate themselves, what can you do but shrug your shoulders and move on?

After twenty years of motorcycling, I wanted to believe in bicycle helmets as thoroughly as I do in motorcycle helmets, but the data just isn't there.  They might help, or they might not, but until we have actual data, we cannot say one way or the other.  In any case, people still ascribe magical properties to these flimsy pieces of styrofoam (as I noted earlier, in the remarks of the many regarding a cyclist t-boning a car at 40mph).  No helmet is going to protect you from blunt-force trauma to your torso (and yes, the same is true for motorcycles; however, in that case, most motorcycle accidents are single-vehicle accidents.  I don't know that we can say the same for bicycles).

future214, the last figures I saw discussed for bicycling fatalities was one death per 3 million rider miles.  In a nation of 300 million people, everyone will know someone or know of someone who died while bicycling, but for any individual, the risk is small.

Original Post by behanna:

When someone shows me a motorcycle helmet that has been rashed to hell and gone, and their head is not rashed and they still have a face and all of their teeth, yes, that's convincing.  When someone shows me a motorcycle helmet whose shell has delaminated, but their skull did not, yes, that's convincing,

So, when a motocycle helmet get's smashed up and the skull doesn't it's convincing, but when a bicycle helmet get's smashed up and the skull doesn't it's not convincing?

Original Post by behanna:

There is no similar body of work for bicycle helmets, unless you can explain away the glaring problems with the Harborview studies.

Do you have a link ot the harborview studies? are they the one's which considered a helmet breaking a 'failure'? if so the yes, I already see a glaring problem.  A broken helmet isn't a failure, a broken skull is.  Nobody cares what happens to a helmet in an accident, they care what happens to the skull. 

I'm confused by this helmet debate.  A bicycle helmet is designed to absorb impact.  It does this by compressing which results in a ruined helmet.  So I don't understand how a broken helmet in a test would be considered a failure.  Wouldn't the unbroken helmet actually be the one that failed?

More importantly, as cyclists we may all know of people who have died cycling but we also know of many others that were saved from serious head injury even though their helmet was destroyedin the process.  I witnessed this first hand on a group ride just three weeks ago.  The rider's helmet was broken and his pelvis was broken but his head was fine.

I will keep wearing my helmet even though I know it won't help much if I get taken out by an automobile because I know that it will help if I hit the deck for some other reason.

Well the issue with bicycle helmets is that most are not rated for multiple impacts. So it might protect the nugging from head trauma on first impact, on subsequent impacts protection either severely reduced or is gone completeley. Helmet that I wear is rated for multiple impacts, it is also expensive as hell (Thank God for team discounts :) ).

Along with most helmets not rated for multiple impacts, they are not rated for high vilocity impacts, and they do little to prevent brain damage that is caused by brain "slamming" in to the inside of the skull. There is a medical term for that, but I forgot it. :)

As I said in my earlier posts, I wear one, but I am not under any illusions on how usefull it is in reality. It's more of a part of a uniform, required for events I participate in, and I don't want to be nagged at by safety nannies about not wearing one.

UD

Yes, floggingsully, when a motorcycle helmet is destroyed, but the skull is not, it is a success.  The motorcycle helmet shell is designed to delaminate on impact, and then the styrofoam liner compresses.  In those cases, the helmet does not get smashed to pieces, but the shell is cracked (much like an eggshell) and the styrofoam liner is held in place between the skull and the pavement, so that it can properly do its job.

In a bicycle helmet, if it stays intact, the styrofoam compresses to decrease the impulse transmitted to the skull.  HOWEVER--and this is the important part--if the bicycle helmet comes apart, the styrofoam is no longer between the skull and the pavement and thus cannot decrease the impulse delivered to the skull.  That is why a bicycle helmet that gets smashed to pieces has utterly failed in its mission and cannot be credited with a save.  (trhawley, I hope that answers your question as well.)

As much as you don't want to believe it, cases in which a bicycle helmet has gone to pieces, but the rider walked away, are also cases in which the rider would have walked away even if he or she hadn't been wearing a helmet at all, because the helmet was utterly unable to contribute anything to the event.

Here's a list of studies and critiques thereof: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1047.html 

That site itself has a lot of (what I considered to be) well-thought-out arguments as to why bicycle helmets are no panacea.  They may be effective, or may not, but until we have a well-constructed study along the lines of what Hurt did for motorcycle accidents, we cannot actually say for sure.

Original Post by behanna:

As much as you don't want to believe it, cases in which a bicycle helmet has gone to pieces, but the rider walked away, are also cases in which the rider would have walked away even if he or she hadn't been wearing a helmet at all, because the helmet was utterly unable to contribute anything to the event.

 

As stated earlier, the dent my helmet put into the side of car before going to pieces argues otherwise.

"As much as you don't want to believe it, cases in which a bicycle helmet has gone to pieces, but the rider walked away, are also cases in which the rider would have walked away even if he or she hadn't been wearing a helmet at all"

I just don't buy this.  The helmet went to pieces absorbing impact that would have otherwise rendered the rider unconscious or possibly dead, in my opinion. And my helmet is designed in a way that prevents the pieces of helmet from leaving my head so the it still provides skid protection even if an impact has caused it to come apart.

But I will read the link you posted.