Head Protection

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:29:42
From: Dick Chambers
Subject: Head Protection

Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
(England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.

But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall. I
have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask them directly if
they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.

My questions:-

What is the web address of RocLoc?

Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?

Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?

Many thanks Dick Chambers Leeds UK.

Date: 17 Mar 2007 01:44:15
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Head Protection

In article <QgAKh.9548$P47.1881@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <rpqKh.10512$jx3.2033@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> All good, but I am looking at Linspire as a Windows look-alike
>>
>> If you want Windows, get fuggin' Windows.
>> If you don't want Windows, get /not/ Windows,
>> and learn to live without the Windows environment,
>> or the Windows way of doing things.
>>
>> Learn to do kernel rebuilds (by hand-editing config files,)
>> and do Vertical Development, and you'll be laffin'.
>>
>> You'll save a bunch of disk space and CPU work, too.
>>
>> Aw, who am I kiddin'? Go play with your "not-Windows" Windows.
>> Amuse thyself with your erzatz Windows that is Windows -- just
>> not from Microsoft.
>>
>> It's a cryin' shame that *nix has to be dragged down
>> to that level.
>>
>>
>>
> I am also a command line person when I get the chance but I deal with
> the 'Joe Consumer' crowd so if I want to keep my little business going I
> have to give 'them' what they want.

What they want is Windows, just not from Microsoft.
Various Linux implementations are happy to be Windows.

> Give me DOS over Windows any day.

You can have it.

> Give me Assembly over Visual shit, too.

So download GNU as. It's free.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 16 Mar 2007 08:50:56
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 16, 1:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:

> The last time I heard of anybody refer to Ubuntu it was 6.10 and it was
> the evaluation version called "Edgy Eft.". So Feisty Fawn would be 6.2?
> Bill Baka, doing too much thinking and not enough riding.

Ubuntu's numerical naming is very simple. It's the year, dot, then the
month it was released. Each release also gets a silly nickname as
well. Therefore Feisty Fawn would be 7.04 as it's a predevelopment
release.

For an average user that doesn't want to upgrade their box and find
the gui is broken, a more stable version like the 6.06 Dapper Drake
LTS (long term support) is recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapper_drake

It's a whole new paradigm, not necessarily a Wndows drop in
replacement. It works for me just fine, but understand that it ain't
'dows, and you'll need new skills if you install it for customers.

Date: 16 Mar 2007 02:16:27
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

landotter wrote:
> On 16, 1:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The last time I heard of anybody refer to Ubuntu it was 6.10 and it was
>> the evaluation version called "Edgy Eft.". So Feisty Fawn would be 6.2?
>> Bill Baka, doing too much thinking and not enough riding.
>
> Ubuntu's numerical naming is very simple. It's the year, dot, then the
> month it was released. Each release also gets a silly nickname as
> well. Therefore Feisty Fawn would be 7.04 as it's a predevelopment
> release.
>
> For an average user that doesn't want to upgrade their box and find
> the gui is broken, a more stable version like the 6.06 Dapper Drake
> LTS (long term support) is recommended.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapper_drake
>
> It's a whole new paradigm, not necessarily a Wndows drop in
> replacement. It works for me just fine, but understand that it ain't
> 'dows, and you'll need new skills if you install it for customers.
>
Funny how I missed that unless it wasn't up yet when I downloaded 6.10
about 6 weeks ago. I was using Dapper Drake 6.06 and it was/is good but
I am in the business to the extent of evaluating all kinds of things so
I can talk to the occasionally well informed and intelligent customer.
Keeping up with hardware and software both keeps me kind of busy, at
least as much as I want to be. I work for myself building custom
computers for people who don't want to settle for the junk inside a
Dell, H.P., or Compaq. Opening one of those shows how cheap they are
inside. It's part time so I can either ride or work.
Bill Baka

Date: 16 Mar 2007 01:51:15
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Head Protection

In article <rpqKh.10512$jx3.2033@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> All good, but I am looking at Linspire as a Windows look-alike

If you want Windows, get fuggin' Windows.
If you don't want Windows, get /not/ Windows,
and learn to live without the Windows environment,
or the Windows way of doing things.

Learn to do kernel rebuilds (by hand-editing config files,)
and do Vertical Development, and you'll be laffin'.

You'll save a bunch of disk space and CPU work, too.

Aw, who am I kiddin'? Go play with your "not-Windows" Windows.
Amuse thyself with your erzatz Windows that is Windows -- just
not from Microsoft.

It's a cryin' shame that *nix has to be dragged down
to that level.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 16 Mar 2007 02:19:15
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <rpqKh.10512$jx3.2033@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> All good, but I am looking at Linspire as a Windows look-alike
>
> If you want Windows, get fuggin' Windows.
> If you don't want Windows, get /not/ Windows,
> and learn to live without the Windows environment,
> or the Windows way of doing things.
>
> Learn to do kernel rebuilds (by hand-editing config files,)
> and do Vertical Development, and you'll be laffin'.
>
> You'll save a bunch of disk space and CPU work, too.
>
> Aw, who am I kiddin'? Go play with your "not-Windows" Windows.
> Amuse thyself with your erzatz Windows that is Windows -- just
> not from Microsoft.
>
> It's a cryin' shame that *nix has to be dragged down
> to that level.
>
>
>
I am also a command line person when I get the chance but I deal with
the 'Joe Consumer' crowd so if I want to keep my little business going I
have to give 'them' what they want.
Give me DOS over Windows any day. Give me Assembly over Visual shit, too.
Bill Baka

Date: 15 Mar 2007 14:57:48
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 15, 3:51 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 2007 10:58:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David L. Johnson wrote:
>
> >> It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know.
>
> >Actually, the MHLs for kids do have one positive aspect, in that they
> >provide the parent with a false sense of security that the helmet
> >negates the danger of riding a bicycle,
>
> This is a _positive_ aspect?

Absolutely! As you know, in this day and age, oceans no longer protect
us!

Date: 14 Mar 2007 16:26:05
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 14, 11:20 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
> > The reason for that is that I am using Linux today and not the usual
> > Winders. I am evaluating different Linux distributions for customers who
> > may not want to be forced into 'Sidegrading' to Vista.
> > Simple enough for you?
> > Bill Baka
>
> Check out the Mepis version of Ubuntu. It's the best release I've found
> for migrating people from Windows. It's the first version I tried that
> got nearly everything working on my notebook, including 802.11 and
> Bluetooth (one minor tweak to get Bluetooth going).

Mepis is just fine and dandy. However, due to them including some
features such as codecs and plugins, the legality of the distribution
is unfortunately a bit sketchy. Worth looking into.

I'm running the development version of Ubuntu, Feisty Fawn, on the
desktop. It's very easy to install the proprietary things that Mepis
comes with out of the box with graphical tools these days.

I'd definitely recommend Ubuntu or Ubuntu based distros, as the
userbase is huge and so is the possibility for assistance if you need
it.

Date: 16 Mar 2007 06:01:59
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

landotter wrote:
> On 14, 11:20 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> The reason for that is that I am using Linux today and not the usual
>>> Winders. I am evaluating different Linux distributions for customers who
>>> may not want to be forced into 'Sidegrading' to Vista.
>>> Simple enough for you?
>>> Bill Baka
>> Check out the Mepis version of Ubuntu. It's the best release I've found
>> for migrating people from Windows. It's the first version I tried that
>> got nearly everything working on my notebook, including 802.11 and
>> Bluetooth (one minor tweak to get Bluetooth going).
>
> Mepis is just fine and dandy. However, due to them including some
> features such as codecs and plugins, the legality of the distribution
> is unfortunately a bit sketchy. Worth looking into.
>
> I'm running the development version of Ubuntu, Feisty Fawn, on the
> desktop. It's very easy to install the proprietary things that Mepis
> comes with out of the box with graphical tools these days.
>
> I'd definitely recommend Ubuntu or Ubuntu based distros, as the
> userbase is huge and so is the possibility for assistance if you need
> it.
>
All good, but I am looking at Linspire as a Windows look-alike, Ubuntu
for total newbies, Suse 10.3 Alpha for me to play with, Debian for a lot
of stuff to play with, Red Hat for people who just have to spend their
money on an operating system, and Vista for idiots with more money than
brains.
Most install pretty good and auto-recognize the weird hardware I have an
they are up and running and downloading updates before I ever have to
reboot. Windows can't seem to recognize much more than the mouse without
about 6 different installs and reboots, so guess which way I am leaning?

I build custom systems for people and advise and show them how to use
what they bought.
In between all that I ride my bike. I went out yesterday to pry my heavy
friend out for a ride but he was actually sick so I rode around for a
while and came home....Sweaty. It went from maybe 60 to 80+ in 2 days
here in my part of California.

Anyway, Mepis(?).
The last time I heard of anybody refer to Ubuntu it was 6.10 and it was
the evaluation version called "Edgy Eft.". So Feisty Fawn would be 6.2?
Bill Baka, doing too much thinking and not enough riding.

Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:38:55
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Head Protection

landotter wrote:

> Mepis is just fine and dandy. However, due to them including some
> features such as codecs and plugins, the legality of the distribution
> is unfortunately a bit sketchy. Worth looking into.

Other distributions do the same thing, i.e. LinuxMint appears to be
competing with Mepis in terms of usability, and including plugins.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:31:04
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Head Protection

In article <lxFJh.250$rj1.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
> carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as you have
> but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder what average is?

<http://www.thehatsite.com/measuring.html >

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 13 Mar 2007 22:38:57
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <lxFJh.250$rj1.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
>> carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as you have
>> but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder what average is?
>
> <http://www.thehatsite.com/measuring.html>
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
>
Wow,
Faster than Googling it.
Bill Baka

Date: 13 Mar 2007 22:59:15
From: nash
Subject: Re: Head Protection

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:5KFJh.4734$JZ3.2051@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <lxFJh.250$rj1.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
>>> carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as you have
>>> but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder what average is?
>>
>> <http://www.thehatsite.com/measuring.html>
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>>
> Wow,
> Faster than Googling it.
> Bill Baka

If you look at time sent you got it before he sent it. Double wow

Date: 13 Mar 2007 16:39:07
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

nash wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5KFJh.4734$JZ3.2051@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> In article <lxFJh.250$rj1.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
>>>> carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as
>>>> you have but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder
>>>> what average is?
>>>
>>> <http://www.thehatsite.com/measuring.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>> Wow,
>> Faster than Googling it.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If you look at time sent you got it before he sent it. Double wow

Computer Genius Iron Bill Baka ain't figured out how to set his clock,
apparently. (He's also pleaded ignorance at how to plonk people, too.)

Bill "do boneheads measure the same as....?" S.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 06:27:39
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Bill Sornson wrote:
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:5KFJh.4734$JZ3.2051@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>> In article <lxFJh.250$rj1.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
>>>>> carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as
>>>>> you have but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder
>>>>> what average is?
>>>> <http://www.thehatsite.com/measuring.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wow,
>>> Faster than Googling it.
>>> Bill Baka
>> If you look at time sent you got it before he sent it. Double wow
>
> Computer Genius Iron Bill Baka ain't figured out how to set his clock,
> apparently. (He's also pleaded ignorance at how to plonk people, too.)
>
> Bill "do boneheads measure the same as....?" S.
>
>
Bonehead (B.S.),
The reason for that is that I am using Linux today and not the usual
Winders. I am evaluating different Linux distributions for customers who
may not want to be forced into 'Sidegrading' to Vista.
Simple enough for you?
Bill Baka

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:20:52
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Bill Baka wrote:

> The reason for that is that I am using Linux today and not the usual
> Winders. I am evaluating different Linux distributions for customers who
> may not want to be forced into 'Sidegrading' to Vista.
> Simple enough for you?
> Bill Baka

Check out the Mepis version of Ubuntu. It's the best release I've found
for migrating people from Windows. It's the first version I tried that
got nearly everything working on my notebook, including 802.11 and
Bluetooth (one minor tweak to get Bluetooth going).

Date: 14 Mar 2007 17:25:04
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

SMS wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> The reason for that is that I am using Linux today and not the usual
>> Winders. I am evaluating different Linux distributions for customers
>> who may not want to be forced into 'Sidegrading' to Vista.
>> Simple enough for you?
>> Bill Baka
>
> Check out the Mepis version of Ubuntu. It's the best release I've found
> for migrating people from Windows. It's the first version I tried that
> got nearly everything working on my notebook, including 802.11 and
> Bluetooth (one minor tweak to get Bluetooth going).

Right now I'm on 6.10 (Edgy Eft) on a 13 GB hard drive, then back to a
20 GB that I am taking from Suse 10.2 to 10.3, Alpha/Beta. I'm running
out of hard drives since I don't want to lose anything on my Windows 250
GB and 120 GB, both full. I need to go shopping for bigger drives and
not bike stuff like I had planned.
What I didn't count on is soooo many varieties of Linux, like 20 and
counting.
Bill Baka
I'm gonna be out of sync for a few weeks.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:27:39
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 11, 11:48 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > The statement on "social norms" puzzles me.
>
> Simple. She who must be obeyed would have puppies were I to venture out
> without one.

Ah. That's not a social norm about wearing helmets, then.

> > If you define "social norm" in terms of club cyclists (like the
> > Buycycling models who would never wear a jersey that lacked snazzy
> > graphics, and who add a cog every time Shimano says "jump") you may be
> > right. But that's a very special class of cyclist.
>
> So would be the people who read this newsgroup, actually. But you could
> manage to make your point without insulting riders who don't do it your
> way.

Sorry I offended you. (If that was an insult, it was certainly a
gentle one!) But speaking as a person who is (also) a club cyclist,
it's certainly true that the typical American club cyclist buys
equipment and clothes according to what's featured in Buycycling
magazine. They want that look - even if the lycra stretches over a
body that would never make the cover. And since "that look" includes
an oddball foam hat, club cyclists in America usually ride with foam
hats.

I think "cyclist" is a more general word, including European
enthusiasts, utility cyclists the world over, kids buzzing around
their neighborhoods, long distance tourists, etc., most of whom would
be puzzled by any insistence that they needed special head protection.

> Frankly, I don't care whether someone else wears a helmet or not. It's
> so much more important to worry about wrong-way cyclists, or those who
> think stop signs are for the other guy. Or, most importantly, those who
> don't ride at all.

I care about those things too. But I think the hyping of minimal
danger does a lot to cause people to not ride at all. And I've seen
so many helmeted cyclists riding wrong way, and/or without lights, and/
or crashing stop signs etc. that I think "safety education" has too
long concentrated on the keting of styrofoam, to the detriment of
all else.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 12 Mar 2007 18:20:49
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> I care about those things too. But I think the hyping of minimal
> danger does a lot to cause people to not ride at all. And I've seen
> so many helmeted cyclists riding wrong way, and/or without lights, and/
> or crashing stop signs etc. that I think "safety education" has too
> long concentrated on the keting of styrofoam, to the detriment of
> all else.

Absolutely, just as "safety" in cars is limited to air bags and crumple
zones. That doesn't make air bags a bad idea; it's the reliance on them
(or hats) instead of basic safety that is the problem.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:13:56
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 11, 9:55 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>
>
> ... removing the best prevention for reducing potential head injury while
> cycling is just plain stupid. Duh.

Not if it doesn't work! And not if it's almost never needed!

As discussed many times, the risk of head injury while bicycling has
been GROSSLY overstated by the helmet promotion crowd. Recall,
bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the head injury fatalities in the
US, and a similar proportion of the serious head injuries.

Pedestrians walking in cities have more serious head injuries in
total, and more serious head injuries per hour exposure than
cyclists. (Which is not to say the risk is great for pedestrians, of
course. It's very low for both peds and cyclists. )

Helmet keteers have deluded people into thinking that cycling's
risk is huge, and thus gotten uncounted millions to wear foam hats.
And yet, population data shows no reduction in the actual head injury
rate. Why is it stupid to remove something that's not needed and
doesn't work?

> Bike helmets aren't to prevent injury if one is hit by a car.

Ask the next ten people on the street if that's true. See what
they've been told.

> They're to prevent injury if one falls down. A five foot fall to concrete will do damage.

My head is higher than five feet when I walk. And I guarantee, I've
fallen more walking than I've ever fallen on bikes. I imagine that's
true for most of us.

So, given all the _other_ sources of serious head injury - the ones
that actually cause 99% of the problem - for which ones do you wear a
helmet?

Date: 12 Mar 2007 09:15:20
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: For "jtaylor", was Head Protection

On 12, 6:00 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 2007 23:53:46 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
>
>
>
>
>
> <david.john...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> >> On 11 2007 12:49:12 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
> >>> ride a bike at all.
>
> >> With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.
>
> >It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
> >cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
> > That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
> >ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.
>
> Don't you see what's going on here?
>
> Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.
>
> If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.
>
> MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.
>
> If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
> take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.
>
> And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
> they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
> wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.
>
> Further, politicians know that
>
> a) children do not vote
>
> b) children grow up
>
> and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
> is to start with the children.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysjngy

HTH

HAND!

Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:40:09
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: For "jtaylor", was Head Protection

Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:31:18
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: For "jtaylor", was Head Protection

Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:49:12
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
>
>
> No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.

:-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
over the years.

I suppose it's possible that real learning has taken place. But I
don't think the success rate has been 100% - that is, enough to
justify "no one here will quibble."

> Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
> concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
> that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.

The statement on "social norms" puzzles me.

>From what I can see, the "social norm" in America is to NOT wear a
helmet. I don't recall anybody showing that even a simple majority of
cyclists wear helmets at all, let alone on every ride.

If you define "social norm" in terms of club cyclists (like the
Buycycling models who would never wear a jersey that lacked snazzy
graphics, and who add a cog every time Shimano says "jump") you may be
right. But that's a very special class of cyclist.

And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
ride a bike at all.

I tend to ignore both of those social norms.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 11 Mar 2007 23:48:10
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.
>
> :-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
> over the years.
>
> I suppose it's possible that real learning has taken place.

Maybe I presumed as much.

>> Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
>> concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
>> that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.
>
> The statement on "social norms" puzzles me.

Simple. She who must be obeyed would have puppies were I to venture out
without one. But, actually, I've been wearing them for a long time,
since back when they were leather.

>>From what I can see, the "social norm" in America is to NOT wear a
> helmet. I don't recall anybody showing that even a simple majority of
> cyclists wear helmets at all, let alone on every ride.
>
> If you define "social norm" in terms of club cyclists (like the
> Buycycling models who would never wear a jersey that lacked snazzy
> graphics, and who add a cog every time Shimano says "jump") you may be
> right. But that's a very special class of cyclist.

So would be the people who read this newsgroup, actually. But you could
manage to make your point without insulting riders who don't do it your
way.

Frankly, I don't care whether someone else wears a helmet or not. It's
so much more important to worry about wrong-way cyclists, or those who
think stop signs are for the other guy. Or, most importantly, those who
don't ride at all.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:49:34
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 11 2007 12:49:12 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>
>And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
>ride a bike at all.
>

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 23:53:46
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 11 2007 12:49:12 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
>> ride a bike at all.
>>
>
> With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

The reason most people don't ride has to do with cars. Riding in a car
isolates people from others, and we have grown to not only like that
isolation, but to insist upon it. On a bike, it's you out there in
public; in a car, you are protected, isolated, alone. This also
explains why people don't, as a rule, ride mass transit.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:58:39
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Head Protection

David L. Johnson wrote:

> It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know.

Actually, the MHLs for kids do have one positive aspect, in that they
provide the parent with a false sense of security that the helmet
negates the danger of riding a bicycle, when in reality the danger level
is about the same with or without a helmet because the number of
head-impact collisions where a helmet makes a difference is so small. I
get so tired of the 85% number, because it's really 85% of a very, very
small percentage to begin with, but the endless articles on helmets
don't do a good job of pointing this out.

One good sign in my area is that the bike racks at the local middle
school are packed, and they had to add a whole other bike parking area
because they didn't expect hundreds of kids riding to school. I really
like the bike I see with the extended rear rack that allows the kid's
trombone to be strapped to it--very clever. Of course I'd like to see
the kids not riding the wrong direction, or on the sidewalks, but this
may be too much to hope for! I think that if they had lockers then a lot
more kids would ride their bikes because they're carrying such heavy
backpacks that it makes riding difficult.

Date: 15 Mar 2007 20:54:25
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Thu, 15 2007 10:58:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:

>I
>get so tired of the 85% number, because it's really 85% of a very, very
>small percentage to begin with

Most of us got tired of the 85% statistic because it was utterly,
blatantly, fabulously wrong - but in favour of helmet laws, so the
helmet manufacturers and pro-MHL crazies picked it up and ran with it
- and they _still_ use it.

Date: 15 Mar 2007 20:51:25
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Thu, 15 2007 10:58:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:

>David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know.
>
>Actually, the MHLs for kids do have one positive aspect, in that they
>provide the parent with a false sense of security that the helmet
>negates the danger of riding a bicycle,

This is a _positive_ aspect?

Date: 12 Mar 2007 12:00:44
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Sun, 11 2007 23:53:46 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 11 2007 12:49:12 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
>>> ride a bike at all.
>>>
>>
>> With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.
>
>It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
>cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
> That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
>ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.
>

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

Further, politicians know that

a) children do not vote

b) children grow up

and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
is to start with the children.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 11:43:09
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

> Don't you see what's going on here?
>
> Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.
>
> If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

OK so far
>
> MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

I do not believe that this is valid, especially not regarding children.
>
> If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
> take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

This is, unfortunately, true.
>
> And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
> they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
> wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

But the culture of fear has preceded such laws, and goes far beyond
bikes. Children are not allowed to go to a neighbor's house except with
a parent, usually driving. They no longer are allowed to simply "go out
and play" as we did, or at least I did, as a child. We have painted the
world in general as so scary that many kids are afraid to do anything on
their own, and adults are afraid to go out in public without a steel
cage protecting them, isolating them, keeping others at bay.

It's not the helmets, it's the fear, that is the problem.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:06:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
>> lives.

> :-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
> over the years.

Why did you delete Flailor's comment, Frank? Why here, I'll go retrieve it:

"They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every now and
then they keep you from getting sewn up."

So don't make it out that pro-lid people (and a small minority at that) are
the only ones claiming that helmets can be effective. Instead, you might
ask why someone who apparently /does/ think that a foam hat can save one's
life argues so vehemently against those who CHOOSE to wear one.

{snip}

> I tend to ignore both of those social norms.

Not to mention personal accounts of real-life experiences.

Off to ride, HAND! Bill S.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:54:59
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Sun, 11 2007 12:06:53 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
>>> lives.
>
>> :-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
>> over the years.
>
>Why did you delete Flailor's comment, Frank? Why here, I'll go retrieve it:
>
>"They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every now and
>then they keep you from getting sewn up."
>

You've had trouble attributing quotes before - this seems to be yet
another such error.

The part you quote came from a post by "landotter".

And as for not saving lives, you could just go read the data that you
have repeatedly told us you'd rather ignore...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:40:55
From: Dick Chambers
Subject: Re: Head Protection

I would like to thank everybody who replied to this question. In the way
that you all did your very best to help a newbie, I rate you all the most
helpful and friendly usenet group I have ever written to.

The outcome of all this is that I have now ordered an XXL helmet from
Wiggle, and I am looking forward to the few days we shall be spending in
Norfolk in April. Not all cycling, though. Some of the time we shall be on
foot, birdwatching. And perhaps hire a rowing boat with my wife on the
Broads. ("Broads" in British English, by the way, does not mean the same as
it does in American English). Might even take her on a boat trip to see the
seals.

Dick Chambers Leeds UK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Dick Chambers" <richard.chambersss7@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:G%0Ih.10659$Yv5.131@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am
> 64 years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my
> back and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
> project will be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire
> bicycles. I shall be going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
> Halfords, and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
> at all, was uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
> of a fall. I have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask
> them directly if they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.
>
> My questions:-
>
> What is the web address of RocLoc?
>
> Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
> Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?
>
> Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?
>
> Many thanks Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
>
>
>

Date: 10 Mar 2007 06:06:45
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:
> I would like to thank everybody who replied to this question. In the way
> that you all did your very best to help a newbie, I rate you all the most
> helpful and friendly usenet group I have ever written to.
>
> The outcome of all this is that I have now ordered an XXL helmet from
> Wiggle, and I am looking forward to the few days we shall be spending in
> Norfolk in April. Not all cycling, though. Some of the time we shall be on
> foot, birdwatching. And perhaps hire a rowing boat with my wife on the
> Broads. ("Broads" in British English, by the way, does not mean the same as
> it does in American English). Might even take her on a boat trip to see the
> seals.
>
> Dick Chambers Leeds UK
>

You are now aware that about half of the responses are going to be to
tell you why you don't need to wear a helmet, but I am glad you found
your answer.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 02:00:14
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Fri, 09 2007 21:40:55 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
<richard.chambersss7@ntlworld.com > wrote:

>I would like to thank everybody who replied to this question. In the way
>that you all did your very best to help a newbie, I rate you all the most
>helpful and friendly usenet group I have ever written to.
>
>The outcome of all this is that I have now ordered an XXL helmet from
>Wiggle, and I am looking forward to the few days we shall be spending in
>Norfolk in April. Not all cycling, though. Some of the time we shall be on
>foot, birdwatching.

You might well wear your helmet when walking and watching the birds;
the chance of it being of any good to you is the much the same as when
cycling...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:09:42
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9, 12:20 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Fri, 9 2007 09:42:28 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
> >>> a helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
> >> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> >> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
> >Peter, Peter, Peter. Real-life (near-death) experience doesn't matter to
> >the AHZs.
>
> Zealotry is the province of those attempting to enforce and/or
> encouraging the enforcement of helmet-wearing on others, not of those
> who point out the fallacious nature of the pro-helmet and pro-MHL
> arguments.

Bingo. Wear one if you insist. I really don't care. I'll live with the
risk. I prefer my jaunty caps, which give me verve and panache, which
motorists admire, thus giving me good visibility and social standing.
If I was back messengering or racing crits, meh, I'd wear one. For the
cycling that I do, which is utility riding within a five mile radius
of home, style is far more important. I'd rather obsess about the tone
of my bell, which is recently sounding a bit shrill and ineffective as
I mentioned in another thread.

I would consider a leather hairnet, just because it looks like you've
made a hat from frankfurters--and that's just dang cool! Plus, if you
run out of fig newtons, you could eat your hat...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 10:20:31
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9, 12:16 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> >> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> >> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> >> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> >> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> >> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> >> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> >> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> >> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> >> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> >> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> >> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
> >> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> >> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
> >> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
> >> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
> >> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>
> >That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
> >OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
> >encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>
> >IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
> >"can't hurt, might help".
>
> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
> "don't help, might hurt".
>
> www.cyclehelmets.org-

Doesn't take long for the Anti-Helmet Psychos, of which "jtaylor" is a
proud member, long to come outta the woodwork, does it?

I'm out, enjoy the AHPs, everyone. ;-)

Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:25:10
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9 2007 10:20:31 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>>
>> >IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>> >"can't hurt, might help".
>>
>> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
>> "don't help, might hurt".
>>
>> www.cyclehelmets.org-
>
>Doesn't take long for the Anti-Helmet Psychos, of which "jtaylor" is a
>proud member, long to come outta the woodwork, does it?
>

I welcome insults - they are a sign that the user has no facts to
support his argument.

In case you missed it, "Ozark", here's the URL:

www.cyclehelmets.org

Lots of facts there...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 10:07:21
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.

That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.

IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
"can't hurt, might help".

> I've also been
> spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
> what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
> now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
> on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding discipline.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:16:27
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
>> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
>> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
>> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
>> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
>> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>
>> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
>> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
>> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
>> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>>
>> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
>> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>
>> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>
>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>
>That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
>OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
>encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>
>IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>"can't hurt, might help".

No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
"don't help, might hurt".

www.cyclehelmets.org

Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:10:27
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Head Protection

<jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:i693v2tcghl5m9e9r75ds034utker6ti6i@4ax.com...
> On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers"
>>> > > <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>>> > > > Park
>>> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>>> > > > again. I am 64
>>> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on
>>> > > > my back
>>> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>>> > > > project will
>>> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>>> > > > shall be
>>> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>>
>>> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>>> > > > in the
>>> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
>>> > > > Halfords,
>>> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at
>>> > > > all, was
>>> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of
>>> > > > a fall.
>>>
>>> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
>>> > > a
>>> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>>
>>> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>>> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>>
>>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>>
>>That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
>>OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
>>encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>>
>>IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>>"can't hurt, might help".
>
> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
> "don't help, might hurt".
>
> www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you don't
support wearing a helmet?

Date: 11 Mar 2007 10:08:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Gooserider wrote:
> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
> news:i693v2tcghl5m9e9r75ds034utker6ti6i@4ax.com...
>> On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers"
>>>>>> <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>>>>>>> Park
>>>>>>> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>>>>>>> again. I am 64
>>>>>>> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun
>>>>>>> on my back
>>>>>>> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>>>>>>> project will
>>>>>>> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>>>>>>> shall be
>>>>>>> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>>>
>>>>>>> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been
>>>>>>> to Halfords,
>>>>>>> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
>>>>>>> at all, was
>>>>>>> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
>>>>>>> of a fall.
>>>>
>>>>>> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to
>>>>>> warrant a
>>>>>> helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>>>
>>>>> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>>>>> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>>>
>>>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>>>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>>>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning
>>> it. OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in
>>> his encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>>>
>>> IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>>> "can't hurt, might help".
>>
>> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
>> "don't help, might hurt".
>>
>> www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
> don't support wearing a helmet?

ROTFL (Pssst. Flailor thinks helmets are dangerous, too.) ROTFL

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:25:53
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Sun, 11 2007 12:10:27 -0400, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>
><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
>news:i693v2tcghl5m9e9r75ds034utker6ti6i@4ax.com...
>> On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers"
>>>> > > <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>>>> > > > Park
>>>> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>>>> > > > again. I am 64
>>>> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on
>>>> > > > my back
>>>> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>>>> > > > project will
>>>> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>>>> > > > shall be
>>>> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>>>
>>>> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>>>> > > > in the
>>>> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
>>>> > > > Halfords,
>>>> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at
>>>> > > > all, was
>>>> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of
>>>> > > > a fall.
>>>>
>>>> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>>>
>>>> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>>>> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>>>
>>>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>>>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>>>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>>>
>>>That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
>>>OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
>>>encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>>>
>>>IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>>>"can't hurt, might help".
>>
>> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
>> "don't help, might hurt".
>>
>> www.cyclehelmets.org
>
>So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you don't
>support wearing a helmet?
>

Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.

Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:55:40
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Head Protection

<jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:sse8v254dtj5c2kfir1o59hml6eenlgd44@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 2007 12:10:27 -0400, "Gooserider"
> <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message
>>news:i693v2tcghl5m9e9r75ds034utker6ti6i@4ax.com...
>>> On 9 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers"
>>>>> > > <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>>>>> > > > Park
>>>>> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>>>>> > > > again. I am 64
>>>>> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun
>>>>> > > > on
>>>>> > > > my back
>>>>> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>>>>> > > > project will
>>>>> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>>>>> > > > shall be
>>>>> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>>>>> > > > in the
>>>>> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been
>>>>> > > > to
>>>>> > > > Halfords,
>>>>> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
>>>>> > > > at
>>>>> > > > all, was
>>>>> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
>>>>> > > > of
>>>>> > > > a fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to
>>>>> > > warrant
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>>>>
>>>>> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>>>>> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>>>>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>>>>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>>>>
>>>>That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
>>>>OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
>>>>encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>>>>
>>>>IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>>>>"can't hurt, might help".
>>>
>>> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
>>> "don't help, might hurt".
>>>
>>> www.cyclehelmets.org
>>
>>So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
>>don't
>>support wearing a helmet?
>>
>
> Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.
>
> Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.

And removing the best prevention for reducing potential head injury while
cycling is just plain stupid. Duh. Bike helmets aren't to prevent injury if
one is hit by a car. They're to prevent injury if one falls down. A five
foot fall to concrete will do damage.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 02:14:24
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Sun, 11 2007 21:55:40 -0400, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>>>>
>>>> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
>>>> "don't help, might hurt".
>>>>
>>>> www.cyclehelmets.org
>>>
>>>So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
>>>don't
>>>support wearing a helmet?
>>>
>>
>> Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.
>
>And removing the best prevention for reducing potential head injury while
>cycling is just plain stupid.

You must have missed the URL above - here it is again.

www.cyclehelmets.org

wherein it is clear that helmets make either zero, or negative impact
on cycle injuy rates.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:14:42
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com >
wrote:
> On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>

I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat. I've also been
spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding discipline.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:11:34
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

landotter wrote:

> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat. I've also been
> spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
> what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
> now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
> on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding discipline.

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.
Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:37:26
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

David L. Johnson wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat. I've also been
>> spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
>> what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
>> now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
>> on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding
>> discipline.

> No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
> lives.

Err, re-read what it wrote.

> Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving
> me from a concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural
> norms insist that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can
> win.

Of course, if one thinks it's a waste of one's time to discuss helmets, one
can't help wonder why one would reply to the OP's wonderfully valid
question. (Especially if one goes on to /admit/ that a lid can save a
life -- something even pro-helmet people rarely claim.)

One's mind boggles at the blustery buffoonery... (Thus a long-ago plonk.)

Bill "ommmmmmmm" S.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:59:10
From: Rola
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:
> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall. I
> have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask them directly if
> they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.
>
> My questions:-
>
> What is the web address of RocLoc?
>
> Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
> Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?
>
> Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?
>
> Many thanks Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
>
>
>
Try this:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360028390

It's in Blighty and shows an example of a couple of XXL helmets. XL is
apparently 7&3/8 to 8 so XXL should allow for growth :-)

There may be more, it was the first one I saw.....

Date: 09 Mar 2007 05:17:45
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> helmet, if you ride responsibly

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.

. Now that I've set myself up to be
> flamed, I'll suggest a Bell brand helmet if you insist on wearing one.
> Not that they're any better than the rest, but their size L fits my
> head, and it's 7 7/8s. 7 3/4s is the circumference of a wee child!
> They're more oval than round compared to Giros, if that matters. Get
> the cheapest one that fits. More dosh buys more really expensive
> holes, the cheaper ones often protect better.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:42:28
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
>> a helmet, if you ride responsibly

> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.

Peter, Peter, Peter. Real-life (near-death) experience doesn't matter to
the AHZs. Now go find some misleading statistics and Bob shall indeed be
yer uncle...

HTH! BS (a little)

Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:20:55
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Fri, 9 2007 09:42:28 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> On 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
>>> a helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
>> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
>Peter, Peter, Peter. Real-life (near-death) experience doesn't matter to
>the AHZs.

Zealotry is the province of those attempting to enforce and/or
encouraging the enforcement of helmet-wearing on others, not of those
who point out the fallacious nature of the pro-helmet and pro-MHL
arguments.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:16:02
From:
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Thu, 08 2007 23:29:42 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
<richard.chambersss7@ntlworld.com > wrote:

>Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
>(England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
>years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
>and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
>be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
>going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
>But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
>British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
>and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
>uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall. I
>have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask them directly if
>they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.
>
>My questions:-
>
>What is the web address of RocLoc?
>
>Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
>Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?
>
>Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?
>

www.cyclehelmets.org

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:32:30
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:

> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.

I understand your dilemma, being roughly the same hat size. You have to
try on helmet after helmet to find one that fits. For me, Bell has a
better fit than Giro, and their extra large size is the most comfortable
helmet I have ever had. But some of that is related to head shape
rather than just circumference. Oddly, both brands are made by the same
people, but the shape of the helmet does differ.

There are extremely ugly helmets specifically designed to not only fit
those with large heads, but to simultaneously keep them out of the gene
pool by making you look like a dork. Clearly the idea is to breed
"wrong" size heads out of the population. But maybe at your age you
don't care about breeding -- although you may still want to go through
the motions.

It will be a quest.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:31:18
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 8, 8:20 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> >> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> >> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> >> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> >> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> >> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> >> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> >> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> >> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> >> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> > helmet, if you ride responsibly. Now that I've set myself up to be
> > flamed, I'll suggest a Bell brand helmet if you insist on wearing one.
> > Not that they're any better than the rest, but their size L fits my
> > head, and it's 7 7/8s. 7 3/4s is the circumference of a wee child!
> > They're more oval than round compared to Giros, if that matters. Get
> > the cheapest one that fits. More dosh buys more really expensive
> > holes, the cheaper ones often protect better.
>
> How exactly, do you measure head size?

For American hats, measure the circumference of your head at the brow
and divide by pi. It's the average diameter of your noggin.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:05:20
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com >
wrote:
> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.

Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
helmet, if you ride responsibly. Now that I've set myself up to be
flamed, I'll suggest a Bell brand helmet if you insist on wearing one.
Not that they're any better than the rest, but their size L fits my
head, and it's 7 7/8s. 7 3/4s is the circumference of a wee child!
They're more oval than round compared to Giros, if that matters. Get
the cheapest one that fits. More dosh buys more really expensive
holes, the cheaper ones often protect better.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:24:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: Head Protection

The Louis Garneau I have is really big.

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173405920.263486.324160@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
>> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am
>> 64
>> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
>> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project
>> will
>> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
>> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>
>> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
>> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
>> Halfords,
>> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all,
>> was
>> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> helmet, if you ride responsibly. Now that I've set myself up to be
> flamed, I'll suggest a Bell brand helmet if you insist on wearing one.
> Not that they're any better than the rest, but their size L fits my
> head, and it's 7 7/8s. 7 3/4s is the circumference of a wee child!
> They're more oval than round compared to Giros, if that matters. Get
> the cheapest one that fits. More dosh buys more really expensive
> holes, the cheaper ones often protect better.
>

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:20:49
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

landotter wrote:
> On 8, 5:29 pm, "Dick Chambers" <richard.chambers...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
>> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
>> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
>> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
>> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
>> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>
>> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
>> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
>> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
>> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall.
>
> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant a
> helmet, if you ride responsibly. Now that I've set myself up to be
> flamed, I'll suggest a Bell brand helmet if you insist on wearing one.
> Not that they're any better than the rest, but their size L fits my
> head, and it's 7 7/8s. 7 3/4s is the circumference of a wee child!
> They're more oval than round compared to Giros, if that matters. Get
> the cheapest one that fits. More dosh buys more really expensive
> holes, the cheaper ones often protect better.
>
How exactly, do you measure head size? I can't wear 9 out of 10 baseball
caps because they won't adjust large enough. My glasses have to have
special stems or they just sit on my ears and not over them like they
are supposed to. I wear the Giro ski helmet because it fits very snug
without a ski mask or other stuff like the intended skier would be wearing.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:58:40
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:
> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am 64
> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my back
> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next project will
> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I shall be
> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to Halfords,
> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at all, was
> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of a fall. I
> have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask them directly if
> they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.

We share a problem there since I am the same head size. In the summer I
go without a helmet but wear the largest sports cap I can find, out to
it's last adjust point, for the visor to keep my eyes from the direct
sun. In the winter, I got lucky and found a Giro ski helmet which is
total overkill for a bicycle but keeps my ears warm and fits very snug.
It is a large and barely fits so I think that maybe they had planned for
a ski mask and other stuff under the helmet.
I know nothing of RocLoc and you may indeed find a problem with a normal
bicycle helmet. One idea would be to find a motorcycle or ski shop and
find out what they have that might fit.
I'm in California so it's a different world for me.
Best of luck.
Bill Baka
>
> My questions:-
>
> What is the web address of RocLoc?
>
> Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
> Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?
>
> Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?
>
> Many thanks Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
>
>
>

Date: 13 Mar 2007 22:09:05
From: Dick Chambers
Subject: Re: Head Protection

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote
>
> We share a problem there since I am the same head size. In the summer I go
> without a helmet but wear the largest sports cap I can find, out to it's
> last adjust point, for the visor to keep my eyes from the direct sun. In
> the winter, I got lucky and found a Giro ski helmet which is total
> overkill for a bicycle but keeps my ears warm and fits very snug.
> It is a large and barely fits so I think that maybe they had planned for a
> ski mask and other stuff under the helmet.
> I know nothing of RocLoc and you may indeed find a problem with a normal
> bicycle helmet. One idea would be to find a motorcycle or ski shop and
> find out what they have that might fit.
> I'm in California so it's a different world for me.
> Best of luck.
> Bill Baka

"Rola", writing on 9 ch, recommended:-

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360028390

I took his advice, looked at the website, and found that they do indeed
offer XXL cycle helmets. So I ordered one. It fits perfectly, but it is at
the limit of its adjustment. I am pleased with it, and look forward to using
it in April. My thanks to Rola for his advice.

This evening, I asked my wife to accurately measure the circumference of my
head for your information, and she told me that I am between 62.25 and
62.5cm. If you measure the circumference of your own head and find that it
is the same 62.5cm or less, I can recommend that you attempt to order the
same type of helmet from Wiggles in England. I feel sure they would export
one to California for you, but with some extra charge for postage. If you
are more than 62.5 cm, I do not think the helmet will fit you, so it will
not be worthwhile.

I did not realise when I posted my original question that I would be
stirring up such a debate. Once again, full ks to this usenet group.
People here, by and large, manage to debate and disagree with each other,
but without the use of personal insults. This is rare in usenet groups, and
I congratulate you all on it.

I have read both sides of the debate, but have decided to buy a helmet
anyway. This is partly for safety reasons (it cannot reduce safety, and
might increase it). But the main reason was that I intend to hire a bicycle
when I go to Norfolk in April. I do not want my holiday to be ruined by a
hire shop that refuses to hire a bicycle to me because I cannot wear the
helmet that he provides. Cycle hirers, like everybody else nowadays, live in
fear of litigation. Of course, I would accept responsibility for my own
accident, but the hirer does not know that when he hires the bike to me.

Dick Chambers Leeds UK.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:25:47
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:

> I took his advice, looked at the website, and found that they do indeed
> offer XXL cycle helmets. So I ordered one. It fits perfectly, but it is at
> the limit of its adjustment. I am pleased with it, and look forward to using
> it in April. My thanks to Rola for his advice.

Plus the Air Force 3 is Snell approved, which is not all that common
these days with most manufacturers doing self-certification to a
different standard. Everyone here agrees that helmets save lives and
prevent injuries, but if possible go with a Snell approved helmet. You
won't find them in department stores or at Costco.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 12:48:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Head Protection

On Wed, 14 2007 09:25:47 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:

>Plus the Air Force 3 is Snell approved, which is not all that common
>these days with most manufacturers doing self-certification to a
>different standard. Everyone here agrees that helmets save lives and
>prevent injuries, but if possible go with a Snell approved helmet. You
>won't find them in department stores or at Costco.

Its Snell B-90A, which is functionally equivalent to the CPSC and ASTM
standards, other than the self-certification issue. I doubt that the
self-certification issue is really a problem for the majors,
especially Bell that manufacturers to processes that are indepently
certified and tested for its international sales lines, including auto
and motorcycle helmets.

Finding an oversized (over size 7 3/4) helmet that is Snell B-95
certified would be difficult. I think settling for B-90 is good
enough, especially as some helmet experts (FWIW, pro-helmet helmet
experts) think that meeting the more stringent standards may actually
make for helmets less functional in the normal range of expected
accidents.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:24:09
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Head Protection

Dick Chambers wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote
>> We share a problem there since I am the same head size. In the summer I go
>> without a helmet but wear the largest sports cap I can find, out to it's
>> last adjust point, for the visor to keep my eyes from the direct sun. In
>> the winter, I got lucky and found a Giro ski helmet which is total
>> overkill for a bicycle but keeps my ears warm and fits very snug.
>> It is a large and barely fits so I think that maybe they had planned for a
>> ski mask and other stuff under the helmet.
>> I know nothing of RocLoc and you may indeed find a problem with a normal
>> bicycle helmet. One idea would be to find a motorcycle or ski shop and
>> find out what they have that might fit.
>> I'm in California so it's a different world for me.
>> Best of luck.
>> Bill Baka
>
> "Rola", writing on 9 ch, recommended:-
>
> http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?Cat=cycle&ProdID=5360028390
>
> I took his advice, looked at the website, and found that they do indeed
> offer XXL cycle helmets. So I ordered one. It fits perfectly, but it is at
> the limit of its adjustment. I am pleased with it, and look forward to using
> it in April. My thanks to Rola for his advice.
>
> This evening, I asked my wife to accurately measure the circumference of my
> head for your information, and she told me that I am between 62.25 and
> 62.5cm. If you measure the circumference of your own head and find that it
> is the same 62.5cm or less, I can recommend that you attempt to order the
> same type of helmet from Wiggles in England. I feel sure they would export
> one to California for you, but with some extra charge for postage. If you
> are more than 62.5 cm, I do not think the helmet will fit you, so it will
> not be worthwhile.
>
> I did not realise when I posted my original question that I would be
> stirring up such a debate. Once again, full ks to this usenet group.
> People here, by and large, manage to debate and disagree with each other,
> but without the use of personal insults. This is rare in usenet groups, and
> I congratulate you all on it.
>
> I have read both sides of the debate, but have decided to buy a helmet
> anyway. This is partly for safety reasons (it cannot reduce safety, and
> might increase it). But the main reason was that I intend to hire a bicycle
> when I go to Norfolk in April. I do not want my holiday to be ruined by a
> hire shop that refuses to hire a bicycle to me because I cannot wear the
> helmet that he provides. Cycle hirers, like everybody else nowadays, live in
> fear of litigation. Of course, I would accept responsibility for my own
> accident, but the hirer does not know that when he hires the bike to me.
>
> Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
>
>
I come in at a tad over 59 cm, at least as measured by a steel
carpenter's tape in inches and converted. Not as tight a fit as you have
but still hard to find a good helmet fit. Now I wonder what average is?
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:01:05
From: Rich Clark
Subject: Re: Head Protection

"Dick Chambers" <richard.chambersss7@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:G%0Ih.10659$Yv5.131@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water Park
> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling again. I am
> 64 years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on my
> back and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
> project will be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire
> bicycles. I shall be going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4 in the
> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
> Halfords, and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
> at all, was uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
> of a fall. I have tried but failed to Google the RocLoc website, to ask
> them directly if they do any higher sizes than the ones I saw in Halfords.
>
> My questions:-
>
> What is the web address of RocLoc?
>
> Are there any other manufacturers or suppliers of cycling headgear in
> Britain? If so, what are the web addresses?
>
> Can you make any other suggestion to solve my problem?
>
> Many thanks Dick Chambers Leeds UK.

AFAIK "RocLoc" is the tradek of Giro's retention system, so the
manufacturer you're looking for is Giro. There are many other equally worthy
brands of helmet manufacturers, and if you must have a helmet the best
advice is that you go to the best-stocked full-service bike shop you can
find and try them all on. Good fit isn't just a matter of circumference, but
of shape, and this will vary from model to model, as will they systems they
use to compensate for different head shapes (stick-on pads, adjustable
straps, various internal suspensions, all that).

A salesperson who understands how to fit a helmet is a rare but useful
accessory to the process.

Spend as little as you can. More money buys no additional protection. The
most protection comes from alert, assertive, vehicular cycling that is based
on understand the true dangers rather than avoiding the imaginary ones...
but I won't get into that with a returning part-time cyclist. Get the
cheapest helmet that fits, don't worry about falling down, and have a good
time!

R