My Coker ride two week ago

system · November 10, 2001, 10:00pm

I whole heartedly agree with Ken. I have never had an air bag go off in my
car and never had a seat belt draw up tight on me from an accident. But I
buckle up everytime I get in the car, even to turn around in my driveway,
which I can do without getting into the street. For that one time I need
it I want it on.

Lowell

----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> To:
<rsu@unicycling.org> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 7:53 PM Subject:
Re: “Crash physics” and protection [Re: My Coker ride two week ago]

> >Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> >)Any unicycling close to the limits of a rider’s ability may result in
> >a )fall, thus such a rider should wear a helmet and other protective
> >)equipment.
>
> doosh@best.com (Tom Holub) wrote:
>
> >I agree.
>
> >) A fall can also occur in all other (safer) types of )unicycling for
> >numerous reasons (bump, dip or pothole in the road, )insufficient
> >concentration, a distraction, foot slipping off pedal, etc. )or any
> >combination of these), so a helmet and possibly other protective
> >)equipment is still recommended for less risky unicycling as well.
>
> >)The risk of falling while jogging is probably several orders of
> >)magnitude less than the risk of falling while unicycling. Falling
> >while )jogging is rare, so there is no compelling reason for a jogger
> >to wear a )helmet.
>
> >Falling while unicycling in unchallenging conditions, for reasonably
> >experienced unicyclists, is about rare as falling while jogging. I ride
> >almost every day, and I can’t recall a fall during normal riding within
> >the past year. I fell a few times in the first couple of months after I
> >learned, and I still fall occasionally working on new skills. Though
> >none of my falls have endangered my head at all. I had several falls
> >while running cross-country in high school. None of those endangered my
> >head either.
>
> The experiences of a single unicyclist over the course of a single year
> when “unicycling in unchallenging conditions” can’t seriously be used as
> the basis for risk assessment for all unicyclists, regardless of
> relative experience.
>
> Tom has been very lucky so far. He doesn’t recall a fall within the
> past year? (: Perhaps, he forgot the fall on his head? Seriously,
> does Tom’s fall free “normal riding” ensure that he will never fall in
> the future (several decades) while "unicycling in unchallenging
> conditions"? Chances are good that he will have a bad fall "in
> unchallenging conditions" sometime in his lifetime (no matter how
> experienced or talented he is). If he persists in wearing protective
> gear only when he expects the unicycling to be challenging, he will
> probably be devoid of any protective gear if he falls under
> “unchallenging conditions”.
>
> Consider the possibility that we are not always in total control of our
> riding. A fast moving baseball crossing our path at just the wrong
> moment … A car behind us that doesn’t directly hit us, but clips us
> enough so we lose control … There are many rare and not so rare
> circumstances that instantly make unicycling in unchallenging conditions
> become extremely challenging or simply impossible.
>
> >I’m all for safety, but let’s be realistic.
>
> Realistically, you can never predict with 100.000000% accuracy when any
> unicyclist, regardless of experience and talent, will fall. Thus, the
> only way to be 100.000000% certain that a unicyclist is wearing
> protective when a fall occurs is for this unicyclist to wear this
> protective gear
> 100.000000% of the time that he rides.
>
> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things that
> occur in life. Not every unicyclist in every classificaion of experience
> and talent (.i.e. skill level) will have a fall in his lifetime under
> “unchallenging conditions” (for unicyclists of that skill level), but a
> significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small number may
> sustain a serious injury or worse. (From what we have heard from Tom, he
> may very well be “unchallenging unicycling” injury free throughout his
> lifetime, but others of equal skill may not be so lucky.)
>
> If we had accurate data on the circumstances of unicycling falls, we
> might be able to say more on this topic with greater certainty. We could
> assign risk probabilities to the various types of unicycling as
> percentages of injurious falls and the severity of such injuries with
> protecive equipment and without protective equipment. With such data or
> despite such data, individuals of legal age and parents of minors could
> better decide for themselves or their children what protective equipment
> is prudent to use for each type of unicycling. (One can only hope that
> they error on the side of safety when determining when protective
> equipment is worn.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com>
> ___________________________________________________________________-
> ________
> rec.sport.unicycling mailing list -
> www.unicycling.org/mailman/listinfo/rsu

system · November 11, 2001, 12:32am

In article <mailman.1005446476.22563.rsu@unicycling.org>, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote: ) )The experiences of a single unicyclist
over the course of a single year )when “unicycling in unchallenging
conditions” can’t seriously be used as )the basis for risk assessment for
all unicyclists, regardless of )relative experience.

My experience is as valid as yours, certainly. Let me put it another way;
how many unicyclists do you know of who have had head injuries in normal
riding conditions?

)Seriously, does Tom’s fall free “normal riding” ensure that he will
)never fall in the future (several decades) while “unicycling in
)unchallenging conditions”?

Of course not. Will you never fall walking down a flight of stairs, or in
your bathtub? There’s no way to know. Certainly if everyone walked around
with a helmet on all the time, there would be fewer head injuries. Most
people prefer to restrict their helmet-wearing to activities with a
reasonable likelihood of danger.

)>I’m all for safety, but let’s be realistic. ) )Realistically, you can
never predict with 100.000000% accuracy when any )unicyclist, regardless
of experience and talent, will fall. Thus, the )only way to be
100.000000% certain that a unicyclist is wearing protective )when a fall
occurs is for this unicyclist to wear this protective gear )100.000000%
of the time that he rides.

Realistically, you can never predict with 100% accuracy when any
pedestrian, regardless of experience and talent, will fall. In fact, just
tonight I tripped walking up a flight of stairs at a concert. Should I
have been wearing a helmet? As it turns out, I didn’t hit my head, but I
could have.

Fear-mongering doesn’t accomplish anything. Without any realistic reason
to believe an activity is dangerous, why portray it as such? -Tom

system · November 11, 2001, 12:32am

In article <mailman.1005446476.22563.rsu@unicycling.org>, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote: ) )The experiences of a single unicyclist
over the course of a single year )when “unicycling in unchallenging
conditions” can’t seriously be used as )the basis for risk assessment for
all unicyclists, regardless of )relative experience.

My experience is as valid as yours, certainly. Let me put it another way;
how many unicyclists do you know of who have had head injuries in normal
riding conditions?

)Seriously, does Tom’s fall free “normal riding” ensure that he will
)never fall in the future (several decades) while “unicycling in
)unchallenging conditions”?

Of course not. Will you never fall walking down a flight of stairs, or in
your bathtub? There’s no way to know. Certainly if everyone walked around
with a helmet on all the time, there would be fewer head injuries. Most
people prefer to restrict their helmet-wearing to activities with a
reasonable likelihood of danger.

)>I’m all for safety, but let’s be realistic. ) )Realistically, you can
never predict with 100.000000% accuracy when any )unicyclist, regardless
of experience and talent, will fall. Thus, the )only way to be
100.000000% certain that a unicyclist is wearing protective )when a fall
occurs is for this unicyclist to wear this protective gear )100.000000%
of the time that he rides.

Realistically, you can never predict with 100% accuracy when any
pedestrian, regardless of experience and talent, will fall. In fact, just
tonight I tripped walking up a flight of stairs at a concert. Should I
have been wearing a helmet? As it turns out, I didn’t hit my head, but I
could have.

Fear-mongering doesn’t accomplish anything. Without any realistic reason
to believe an activity is dangerous, why portray it as such? -Tom

system · November 11, 2001, 12:32am

In article <mailman.1005446476.22563.rsu@unicycling.org>, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote: ) )The experiences of a single unicyclist
over the course of a single year )when “unicycling in unchallenging
conditions” can’t seriously be used as )the basis for risk assessment for
all unicyclists, regardless of )relative experience.

My experience is as valid as yours, certainly. Let me put it another way;
how many unicyclists do you know of who have had head injuries in normal
riding conditions?

)Seriously, does Tom’s fall free “normal riding” ensure that he will
)never fall in the future (several decades) while “unicycling in
)unchallenging conditions”?

Of course not. Will you never fall walking down a flight of stairs, or in
your bathtub? There’s no way to know. Certainly if everyone walked around
with a helmet on all the time, there would be fewer head injuries. Most
people prefer to restrict their helmet-wearing to activities with a
reasonable likelihood of danger.

)>I’m all for safety, but let’s be realistic. ) )Realistically, you can
never predict with 100.000000% accuracy when any )unicyclist, regardless
of experience and talent, will fall. Thus, the )only way to be
100.000000% certain that a unicyclist is wearing protective )when a fall
occurs is for this unicyclist to wear this protective gear )100.000000%
of the time that he rides.

Realistically, you can never predict with 100% accuracy when any
pedestrian, regardless of experience and talent, will fall. In fact, just
tonight I tripped walking up a flight of stairs at a concert. Should I
have been wearing a helmet? As it turns out, I didn’t hit my head, but I
could have.

Fear-mongering doesn’t accomplish anything. Without any realistic reason
to believe an activity is dangerous, why portray it as such? -Tom

system · November 11, 2001, 12:32am

In article <mailman.1005446476.22563.rsu@unicycling.org>, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote: ) )The experiences of a single unicyclist
over the course of a single year )when “unicycling in unchallenging
conditions” can’t seriously be used as )the basis for risk assessment for
all unicyclists, regardless of )relative experience.

My experience is as valid as yours, certainly. Let me put it another way;
how many unicyclists do you know of who have had head injuries in normal
riding conditions?

)Seriously, does Tom’s fall free “normal riding” ensure that he will
)never fall in the future (several decades) while “unicycling in
)unchallenging conditions”?

Of course not. Will you never fall walking down a flight of stairs, or in
your bathtub? There’s no way to know. Certainly if everyone walked around
with a helmet on all the time, there would be fewer head injuries. Most
people prefer to restrict their helmet-wearing to activities with a
reasonable likelihood of danger.

)>I’m all for safety, but let’s be realistic. ) )Realistically, you can
never predict with 100.000000% accuracy when any )unicyclist, regardless
of experience and talent, will fall. Thus, the )only way to be
100.000000% certain that a unicyclist is wearing protective )when a fall
occurs is for this unicyclist to wear this protective gear )100.000000%
of the time that he rides.

Realistically, you can never predict with 100% accuracy when any
pedestrian, regardless of experience and talent, will fall. In fact, just
tonight I tripped walking up a flight of stairs at a concert. Should I
have been wearing a helmet? As it turns out, I didn’t hit my head, but I
could have.

Fear-mongering doesn’t accomplish anything. Without any realistic reason
to believe an activity is dangerous, why portray it as such? -Tom

system · November 11, 2001, 5:07am

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:23:27 -0600, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Any unicycling close to the limits of a rider’s ability may result in
> a fall, thus such a rider should wear a helmet and other protective
> equipment. A fall can also occur in all other (safer) types of
> unicycling for numerous reasons (bump, dip or pothole in the road,
> insufficient concentration, a distraction, foot slipping off pedal,
> etc. or any combination of these), so a helmet and possibly other
> protective equipment is still recommended for less risky unicycling
> as well.

Oh the great helmet debate. You should proceed to a bicycle news group
(oh, I am a heretic) and start one there.

Helmets are personal. You can use statistics to point either way, and
demonstrate any case you want (for example - you’re more likely to suffer
a head injury in a car than on a bicycle, so why not make them compulsory
for all car occupants?). Common sense is not really relevant. Let’s not
have a terrific flame-fest on the subject, please?

Personally, I wear one for bicycle riding, I don’t for unicycling. I might
if I was learning something new on the unicycle, or doing something at
near my limits.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:07am

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:23:27 -0600, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Any unicycling close to the limits of a rider’s ability may result in
> a fall, thus such a rider should wear a helmet and other protective
> equipment. A fall can also occur in all other (safer) types of
> unicycling for numerous reasons (bump, dip or pothole in the road,
> insufficient concentration, a distraction, foot slipping off pedal,
> etc. or any combination of these), so a helmet and possibly other
> protective equipment is still recommended for less risky unicycling
> as well.

Oh the great helmet debate. You should proceed to a bicycle news group
(oh, I am a heretic) and start one there.

Helmets are personal. You can use statistics to point either way, and
demonstrate any case you want (for example - you’re more likely to suffer
a head injury in a car than on a bicycle, so why not make them compulsory
for all car occupants?). Common sense is not really relevant. Let’s not
have a terrific flame-fest on the subject, please?

Personally, I wear one for bicycle riding, I don’t for unicycling. I might
if I was learning something new on the unicycle, or doing something at
near my limits.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:07am

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:23:27 -0600, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Any unicycling close to the limits of a rider’s ability may result in
> a fall, thus such a rider should wear a helmet and other protective
> equipment. A fall can also occur in all other (safer) types of
> unicycling for numerous reasons (bump, dip or pothole in the road,
> insufficient concentration, a distraction, foot slipping off pedal,
> etc. or any combination of these), so a helmet and possibly other
> protective equipment is still recommended for less risky unicycling
> as well.

Oh the great helmet debate. You should proceed to a bicycle news group
(oh, I am a heretic) and start one there.

Helmets are personal. You can use statistics to point either way, and
demonstrate any case you want (for example - you’re more likely to suffer
a head injury in a car than on a bicycle, so why not make them compulsory
for all car occupants?). Common sense is not really relevant. Let’s not
have a terrific flame-fest on the subject, please?

Personally, I wear one for bicycle riding, I don’t for unicycling. I might
if I was learning something new on the unicycle, or doing something at
near my limits.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:07am

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:23:27 -0600, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Any unicycling close to the limits of a rider’s ability may result in
> a fall, thus such a rider should wear a helmet and other protective
> equipment. A fall can also occur in all other (safer) types of
> unicycling for numerous reasons (bump, dip or pothole in the road,
> insufficient concentration, a distraction, foot slipping off pedal,
> etc. or any combination of these), so a helmet and possibly other
> protective equipment is still recommended for less risky unicycling
> as well.

Oh the great helmet debate. You should proceed to a bicycle news group
(oh, I am a heretic) and start one there.

Helmets are personal. You can use statistics to point either way, and
demonstrate any case you want (for example - you’re more likely to suffer
a head injury in a car than on a bicycle, so why not make them compulsory
for all car occupants?). Common sense is not really relevant. Let’s not
have a terrific flame-fest on the subject, please?

Personally, I wear one for bicycle riding, I don’t for unicycling. I might
if I was learning something new on the unicycle, or doing something at
near my limits.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:18am

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:53:18 -0600, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things
> that occur in life.

Lies, damn lies, and … ?

> level), but a significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small
> number may sustain a serious injury or worse.

OK, how about this train of thought:

We have some millions of years of evolution[1] developing reflexes. These
reflexes include self-preservation, which includes protecting the brain.

We have many years of practice at knowing where our head is.

We fall (awkwardly, sideways). Our reflexes know where the ground is, know
where our head is, and automatically restrain our head, keeping it off the
ground. Except, we were wearing a helmet - it sustains a glancing blow,
which wrenches our neck sideways. Not being braced for it (our reflexes
don’t know about helmets) our neck doesn’t resist, and our spinal chord
sustains damage. We don’t walk again. Had we not been wearing a helmet,
we’d have got up again, and forgotten about it by the next day.

Innappropriate ‘protective’ equipment can be worse than none.

How about this one:

We put a helmet on. we ride. We take more risks#, we fall off more, we
suffer more injuries than had we not worn a helmet.

It’s not an easy judgement, common sense is not that great a tool. It’s
personal - each to their own. I don’t care whether you wear a helmet or
not. I’m not going to suggest you shouldn’t wear a helmet getting
something off a high shelf (which, incidentally, is the only scenario in
which I’ve suffered a head injury). Please don’t use emotive speculation
with little factual basis to criticise the decisions of another person.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:18am

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:53:18 -0600, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things
> that occur in life.

Lies, damn lies, and … ?

> level), but a significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small
> number may sustain a serious injury or worse.

OK, how about this train of thought:

We have some millions of years of evolution[1] developing reflexes. These
reflexes include self-preservation, which includes protecting the brain.

We have many years of practice at knowing where our head is.

We fall (awkwardly, sideways). Our reflexes know where the ground is, know
where our head is, and automatically restrain our head, keeping it off the
ground. Except, we were wearing a helmet - it sustains a glancing blow,
which wrenches our neck sideways. Not being braced for it (our reflexes
don’t know about helmets) our neck doesn’t resist, and our spinal chord
sustains damage. We don’t walk again. Had we not been wearing a helmet,
we’d have got up again, and forgotten about it by the next day.

Innappropriate ‘protective’ equipment can be worse than none.

How about this one:

We put a helmet on. we ride. We take more risks#, we fall off more, we
suffer more injuries than had we not worn a helmet.

It’s not an easy judgement, common sense is not that great a tool. It’s
personal - each to their own. I don’t care whether you wear a helmet or
not. I’m not going to suggest you shouldn’t wear a helmet getting
something off a high shelf (which, incidentally, is the only scenario in
which I’ve suffered a head injury). Please don’t use emotive speculation
with little factual basis to criticise the decisions of another person.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:18am

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:53:18 -0600, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things
> that occur in life.

Lies, damn lies, and … ?

> level), but a significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small
> number may sustain a serious injury or worse.

OK, how about this train of thought:

We have some millions of years of evolution[1] developing reflexes. These
reflexes include self-preservation, which includes protecting the brain.

We have many years of practice at knowing where our head is.

We fall (awkwardly, sideways). Our reflexes know where the ground is, know
where our head is, and automatically restrain our head, keeping it off the
ground. Except, we were wearing a helmet - it sustains a glancing blow,
which wrenches our neck sideways. Not being braced for it (our reflexes
don’t know about helmets) our neck doesn’t resist, and our spinal chord
sustains damage. We don’t walk again. Had we not been wearing a helmet,
we’d have got up again, and forgotten about it by the next day.

Innappropriate ‘protective’ equipment can be worse than none.

How about this one:

We put a helmet on. we ride. We take more risks#, we fall off more, we
suffer more injuries than had we not worn a helmet.

It’s not an easy judgement, common sense is not that great a tool. It’s
personal - each to their own. I don’t care whether you wear a helmet or
not. I’m not going to suggest you shouldn’t wear a helmet getting
something off a high shelf (which, incidentally, is the only scenario in
which I’ve suffered a head injury). Please don’t use emotive speculation
with little factual basis to criticise the decisions of another person.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:18am

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:53:18 -0600, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things
> that occur in life.

Lies, damn lies, and … ?

> level), but a significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small
> number may sustain a serious injury or worse.

OK, how about this train of thought:

We have some millions of years of evolution[1] developing reflexes. These
reflexes include self-preservation, which includes protecting the brain.

We have many years of practice at knowing where our head is.

We fall (awkwardly, sideways). Our reflexes know where the ground is, know
where our head is, and automatically restrain our head, keeping it off the
ground. Except, we were wearing a helmet - it sustains a glancing blow,
which wrenches our neck sideways. Not being braced for it (our reflexes
don’t know about helmets) our neck doesn’t resist, and our spinal chord
sustains damage. We don’t walk again. Had we not been wearing a helmet,
we’d have got up again, and forgotten about it by the next day.

Innappropriate ‘protective’ equipment can be worse than none.

How about this one:

We put a helmet on. we ride. We take more risks#, we fall off more, we
suffer more injuries than had we not worn a helmet.

It’s not an easy judgement, common sense is not that great a tool. It’s
personal - each to their own. I don’t care whether you wear a helmet or
not. I’m not going to suggest you shouldn’t wear a helmet getting
something off a high shelf (which, incidentally, is the only scenario in
which I’ve suffered a head injury). Please don’t use emotive speculation
with little factual basis to criticise the decisions of another person.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 5:18am

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:53:18 -0600, Ken Fuchs
<kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

> Statistics come into play here in unicycling falls as in all things
> that occur in life.

Lies, damn lies, and … ?

> level), but a significant percentage will, and of those a (very) small
> number may sustain a serious injury or worse.

OK, how about this train of thought:

We have some millions of years of evolution[1] developing reflexes. These
reflexes include self-preservation, which includes protecting the brain.

We have many years of practice at knowing where our head is.

We fall (awkwardly, sideways). Our reflexes know where the ground is, know
where our head is, and automatically restrain our head, keeping it off the
ground. Except, we were wearing a helmet - it sustains a glancing blow,
which wrenches our neck sideways. Not being braced for it (our reflexes
don’t know about helmets) our neck doesn’t resist, and our spinal chord
sustains damage. We don’t walk again. Had we not been wearing a helmet,
we’d have got up again, and forgotten about it by the next day.

Innappropriate ‘protective’ equipment can be worse than none.

How about this one:

We put a helmet on. we ride. We take more risks#, we fall off more, we
suffer more injuries than had we not worn a helmet.

It’s not an easy judgement, common sense is not that great a tool. It’s
personal - each to their own. I don’t care whether you wear a helmet or
not. I’m not going to suggest you shouldn’t wear a helmet getting
something off a high shelf (which, incidentally, is the only scenario in
which I’ve suffered a head injury). Please don’t use emotive speculation
with little factual basis to criticise the decisions of another person.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ | (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/ian/amos.html

system · November 11, 2001, 7:25am

This is a great technical article on falling and hurting yourself that is
applicable to a wide variety of sports. Thanks for the thoroughness, Ken.

For me my default is to wear a helmet on rides. I may also add hard knee
pads and wrist protectors. I’ve also gotten hurt doing simple things when
I did not have safety equipment.

I look upon the safety equipment issue as a calculated risk assessment.
There is a probability that you’ll hit your head. I haven’t yet. But even
if you don’t hit your head, sufficient sudden movement can jar the jelly
stuff you have between your ears (brain) to really mess you up. When I
don’t wear safety equipment I consciously accept the risk factor involved,
that I could get knee scrapes, hurt/break wrists, etc.

I hate to state the obvious, especially to this group, but unicycles are
an inherently unstable mode of transportation. Let’s not kid ourselves
into thinking riding our unis is like sitting on a kitchen chair. Or
walking. That’s why we need so much skill to ride one. And when we’re
healthy, our equipment is functioning great, we have a sufficiently high
skill level, we’re in good riding shape, the riding surface is smooth and
even, the weather’s clear and we’ve got a high level of energy, the
probability of an injury is quite low. But these are optimum conditions.

From the start of a ride our conditions begin to degrade. We expend
energy and begin to get tired. And become more sloppy with our technique.
We ride over risky terrain. It rains/snows. We forget to drink enough
water and start to dehydrate, etc. As our physical riding conditions
degrade, the risk of injury increases as we move farther from the
“optimum condition” state.

And when I experience this degradation of the optimum state, this is when
I most commonly get hurt. This occurs at the tail end of a ride or parade.
Or it may be because of a hard ride/late night with the kid/out at a late
social function the previous day/night, where your body doesn’t have
enough time to fully recover.

At sub optimum conditions, safety equipment can save your butt. And your
knees, wrists and your brain. You’re tired and your reaction times are
longer. You can feel on a ride when you’re losing it because you’re simply
not as sharp. And if you’re not so lucky and you go down, if you have
safety equipment your injury is by far reduced and you’ll recover much
faster. Maybe you’ll even be able to ride the next day.

So for all of us, I think it’s safe to say that when we ride we get tired.
And when we get tired we are not as coordinated. And when this happens we
can either stop riding or we take more risk that we’ll mess up. And who
stops riding? Not I. And when we mess up it’s nice to have safety
equipment there to save our skin. And who is willing to put on safety
equipment ONLY at the tail end of a ride? Not I. So I put it on at the
start, when I probably don’t need it. But one can’t predict when you’ll
slide into sub optimal conditions that require more protection. You need
it when you fall, which is not very predictable.

Safety equipment has allowed me to ride more days because I wasn’t
sidelined with injury. Not using safety equipment and falling has resulted
in days when I can’t ride due to healing. Of course no safety equipment
can guarantee you to be injury free.

Happy riding. And may you safely ride in when you’re in your sub
optimal state.

Don_TaiATyahooDOTcoDOTuk, Toronto, Canada
http://torontounicyclists.tripod.com

system · November 11, 2001, 7:25am