bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 08 May 2006 06:15:09 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me over yet or kicked me out. =) Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after all...). =D Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or indirect heat might damage the helmet. Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and then manipulating subatomic physics!) I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to direct sunlight!   Date: 30 Jun 2006 06:13:49 From: Marz Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Taunto wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: > > Hadron Quark wrote: > > > >> > >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit > >> his/her head on the kerb would that child > >> > >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > >> 2) Come out injury free > >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > >> 4) Be better off with a helmet > >> 5) Some or all of the above? > > > > > > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3. > > > > If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on > > a kerb would that child > > > > 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > > 2) Come out injury free > > 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > > 4) Be better off with a helmet > > 5) Some or all of the above? > > > > This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and > > the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater > > proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling > > injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year > > olds wear helmets all the time? > > > > If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike > clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb: > > 1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him > 2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet > 3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held > responsible for their actions. > 4. Be better off without a helmet. > 5. Some or all of the above. 1 then 3.   Date: 07 Jun 2006 10:47:23 From: vmcreek Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > > > Jay Beattie wrote: > >> I also have a shower > >> helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss > >> off Frank and Tony. > > > > You being consistent would not piss me off at all. And the ones that > > think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day > > activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me > > except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others. > > Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? I thought this thread was > about whether a helemt would protect one. Why are you constantly > shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling > (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics you spout). Take an old helmet put a melon and drop it on a sidewalk from three feet. Now drop just the melom. This is your brain,This is your brain on the side walk! vmcreek;It's not what you ride but that you ride.     Date: 08 Jun 2006 11:08:17 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <1149702443.721664.8420@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, vmcreek (vmcreek@yahoo.com) wrote: > Take an old helmet put a melon and drop it on a sidewalk from three > feet. Now drop just the melom. This is your brain,This is your brain > on the side walk! See this melon? That's you, that is. That's your head. All green and squashy. Ick. <y_Whitehouse-Experience > -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.     Date: 07 Jun 2006 19:08:45 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? vmcreek wrote: > > Take an old helmet put a melon and drop it on a sidewalk from three > feet. Now drop just the melom. This is your brain,This is your brain > on the side walk! vmcreek;It's not what you ride but that you ride. > My head isn't a melon but I can't speak for yours -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci     Date: 07 Jun 2006 19:04:03 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? vmcreek wrote: > Take an old helmet put a melon and drop it on a sidewalk from three > feet. Now drop just the melom. This is your brain,This is your brain > on the side walk! If people's brains and skulls were really that prone to damage we'd have died out millenia ago, because any time anyone fell over they'd be killed. No need to wait for bikes to be invented. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 07 Jun 2006 10:39:04 From: vmcreek Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > > > Jay Beattie wrote: > >> I also have a shower > >> helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss > >> off Frank and Tony. > > > > You being consistent would not piss me off at all. And the ones that > > think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day > > activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me > > except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others. > > Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? I thought this thread was > about whether a helemt would protect one. Why are you constantly > shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling > (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics you spout).   Date: 01 Jun 2006 20:06:41 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Cathy Kearns wrote: > "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > news:1149125187.790712.205060@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Tony Raven wrote: > > > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > > > > > > > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The > other > > > > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered > junior > > > > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at > > > > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding > at age > > > > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away > to > > > > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California > adults > > > > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose > > > mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and > > > there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit. > > > > > > > I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when > > she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a > > helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later, > > that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but > > did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had > > to wear a helmet? > > > > That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't > > have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons. > > My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may > > be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But > > otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . . > > that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy > > to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride > > just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie. > > > > Yes, she did say she was quitting because she didn't want to wear the > helmet. It's not that helmets look dorky. It's that even after you take > the helmet off for the day you look dorky until you can restyle (blow-dry, > hot iron, whatever) your hair. And that is not an option at school. And no, > it's not like she got to drive to school instead. > > I know real helmet enthusiast tend to poo-poo the hair thing. But I > remember asking my hair stylist if she could recommend a hair style that > would withstand a bike helmet. Note, I'm not that picky about hair style, > heck, I drive a convertable, wind blown is just fine. I was going on a tour > of France, and when I got off the bike to tour the towns and cathedrals I > just wanted to look presentable. She had no answer at all. She had a few > other clients that were semi pro lady cyclists, and even the pony tail look > still gave them matted ridges after a long ride. > > After my daughter gave up her bike I started thinking about it. And I found > that, since I have car keys, if I had just showered and finally wrestled my > hair into submission I would drive rather than ride my bike to do errands, > even when it would obviously be faster to ride the bike. (We have a ton of > cut through paths around here, routes on a bike are often much shorter than > the same route in a car. Also parking around shops and schools are such > that parking a car would require a much longer walk than parking a bike.) > So then I started to think about the helmet, and whether I needed it to run > errands on the same streets I'm willing to walk or run on without a helmet, > and decided if the deciding factor for biking or driving was really the > helmet, I'd just leave the helmet at home and ride the bike. The safety > factor of the helmet was offset by the extra exercise I was getting. > > Note: when I do personal risk assessments I take into account I've been > biking for many years, including the 4+ years I went to college in Davis. I > have never fallen and hit my head while on a bike. I have hit my head on a > curb while running and knocked my self out taking a flying header into the > ice playing broom ball. Neither time was I wearing a helmet. Neither time > did I die. (Though the injuries from the fall while running did look > suspiciously like I wiped out on a bike, road rash all the way down one > side...) Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer, > figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I > don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are > so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that. I'll take your word on the girl thing. I rode across the United States with a girlfriend who wore a helmet -- back in '81 when they were not popular. She never let out a peep about her hair, which was pretty short and always seemed to look good. My wife raced for years (until she got a movement disorder) and always wore a helmet. She never said anyting about her hair, which seems to live a life of its own anyway. She got knocked out in a race and thought a helmet was a good idea -- and so did the USCF, so it wasn't an option for her racing. I have never hit my head while walking or running. The only place I have hit my head apart from cycling is skiing and while cooking (killer cupboards). I have a ski helmet (it keeps my ears warm), and I am considering a cooking helmet with spoon holders. I also have a shower helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss off Frank and Tony. My walking helmet has a sign on the side that says "please, oh please, pass a walking helmet MHL . . . . walking is more dangerous than bicycling!" -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:19:05 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Jay Beattie wrote: > I also have a shower > helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss > off Frank and Tony. You being consistent would not piss me off at all. And the ones that think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci       Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:26:21 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > Jay Beattie wrote: >> I also have a shower >> helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss >> off Frank and Tony. > > You being consistent would not piss me off at all. And the ones that > think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day > activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me > except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others. Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? I thought this thread was about whether a helemt would protect one. Why are you constantly shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics you spout).         Date: 02 Jun 2006 06:41:50 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:26:21 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > >> Jay Beattie wrote: >>> I also have a shower >>> helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to piss >>> off Frank and Tony. >> >> You being consistent would not piss me off at all. And the ones that >> think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day >> activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me >> except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others. > >Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? I thought this thread was >about whether a helemt would protect one. Why are you constantly >shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling Because it points out major logical flaws on the part of strong helmet proponets. If a strong helmet proponent doesn't use a helmet in other similarly safe activities it proobably means 1 of 2 things: 1 They believe cycling is more dangeous than those other activities 2 They are choosing to wear a helmet for some "reason" other than the facts. The latter is OK if we're honest about it. If you say "Look, I know the odds of it helping prevent a serious injury are remote, but I've worn it all my life and my gut wants me to wear it" I've got no problem with that. Or "My husband won't let me ride without it and it's not worth arguing with him about." Or "There is a law in one place where I ride that requires it." Fine. But insofar as those of us in this group are talking publicly about our behaviour and seriving as opinion leaders, to say "I always wear a helmet on the road" without at least recognizing the weakness of rationale for that behaviour is lame and even deceptive. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************         Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:49:21 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? I thought this thread > was about whether a helemt would protect one. Why are you constantly > shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling > (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics > you spout). Because if you believe helmets work and the risks of cycling necessitate wearing one then there is a greater necessity to wear one walking. If you don't believe either then you do what I do and don't wear one while walking or cycling. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci         Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:42:12 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? If it /isn't/ then why does it merit special head protection? > I thought this thread was > about whether a helemt would protect one. The two aspects are very much intertwined where safety equipment is concerned, despite your insistence that it's sensible to differentiate them completely. There is no end of measures in most day to day activities that will protect people but which aren't used because the dangers are too low to make it worth the bother. > Why are you constantly > shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling To demonstrate that whether you have something that will protect you isn't the end of the argument (though even if it was, there's problems with the assumption that a cycle helmet /must/ be at least neutral or a benefit). If it /was/ the end of the argument then it would logically apply to walking to, but since it clearly doesn't questions about why it doesn't are raised. > (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics you spout). So how do all those people end up with injuries which they collect at a higher rate per unit distance than cyclists? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:54:09 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > >> (which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics >> you spout). > > So how do all those people end up with injuries which they collect at a > higher rate per unit distance than cyclists? > Perhaps that's why our hospitals are overcrowded in the UK - the beds are filled by fictitious people who don't really exist but annoyingly turn up in the admissions records. Now if we could just get the doctors and nurses to understand these people don't exist and their beds are really empty we could solve the hospital bed problem in an instant. Over to you Pete, you work in a hospital. ;-) -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci           Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:49:48 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Who has said cycling is much more dangerous? > > If it /isn't/ then why does it merit special head protection? > Snore. Who said it does? YOu seem unable to differentiate between someone accepting that a helmet is better than no helmet and someone who supports a MHL. btw, nice rearrangement again : you will know that I was pointing out that the comparison game was not being played. It is you who keeps bringing up the "more than" "less than" arguments for some reason : most posters in this thread dont care about whether a helmet would protect one when popping to the garden shed for the shears.             Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:08:10 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > Snore. Who said it does? YOu seem unable to differentiate between > someone accepting that a helmet is better than no helmet and someone who > supports a MHL. But if a helmet being better than no helmet is an issue then it is because the wearer thinks s/he is in particular danger worthy of wearing it. I ma safer from head injury in my kitchen if I wear a helmet. I accept that. But I (and pretty much nobody else) wears a helmet to protect themselves against banging their heads on open cupboards. Why not? The overall risk is not one that merits it. For a different result on a cycle, one must be coming to different conclusions about the risk level. While I understand that people do come to different conclusions that does not make them right. And indeed it is the case that if you look at the big picture it turns out they are basically wrong. > btw, nice rearrangement again : you will know that I was pointing out > that the comparison game was not being played. You persist in ignoring the point that comparisons are actually central to risk analysis and how we deal with risk. They're not. > It is you who keeps bringing up the "more than" "less than" arguments > for some reason : most posters in this thread dont care about whether a > helmet would protect one when popping to the garden shed for the shears. And this is an illustration of how their thinking is inconsistent. It shouldn't be a case of "cycling needs a helmet, gardening doesn't, because one uses a bike and the other doesn't", it *should* be "such and such merits a helmet while this other doesn't because such and such carries considerably more danger of a head injury than this other". The important differential is the nature of the risk, /not/ that one happens to have people selling helmets for it. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:58:43 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Jay Beattie wrote: > > > I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when > she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a > helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later, > that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but > did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had > to wear a helmet? That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't > have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons. I'm surprised you find it unusual. I know a family in our bike club that took the "No helmet, no bike" stance with their daughter. She was somewhere around 14 at the time, IIRC. Her response? "Fine. I won't ride a bike." And despite their continued avid cycling, and the years they spent riding pre-helmet, she never rode again. (She's probably older than 30 now.) With our two kids, we had the same discussion, although it was my wife, not me, doing the promoting. Now this was years ago, when I was still a helmet promoter, before I'd read the research papers on the topic. Anyway, when each of our kids gave us the same response, I decided riding was more important than wearing a plastic hat. The kids continued to ride, and in fact, our daughter completed a coast to coast tour across America with us just a few years ago. And it goes without saying, neither kid ever had any problems. Each kid toppled at low speed a few times (worst injury: leg scratches or scrapes). Neither heads nor helmets ever touched ground. Cycling is NOT very dangerous! Helmets are an ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:33:06 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:G7gfg.24291$43.2732@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > > > It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any > > measure they are not worth considering. > > > > A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a > > day. > > Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of > death while driving? And, how about the injury rate? Gary, it's clear that you've bought the "Cycling!!! Danger!!!!" propaganda. Try reading http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 31 May 2006 18:26:27 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > > > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other > > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior > > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at > > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age > > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to > > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults > > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.) > > > > > > Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose > mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and > there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit. > I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later, that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had to wear a helmet? That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons. My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . . that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 01 Jun 2006 05:38:22 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message news:1149125187.790712.205060@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Tony Raven wrote: > > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > > > > > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other > > > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior > > > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at > > > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age > > > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to > > > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults > > > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.) > > > > > > > > > > Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose > > mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and > > there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit. > > > > I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when > she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a > helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later, > that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but > did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had > to wear a helmet? > > That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't > have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons. > My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may > be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But > otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . . > that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy > to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride > just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie. > Yes, she did say she was quitting because she didn't want to wear the helmet. It's not that helmets look dorky. It's that even after you take the helmet off for the day you look dorky until you can restyle (blow-dry, hot iron, whatever) your hair. And that is not an option at school. And no, it's not like she got to drive to school instead. I know real helmet enthusiast tend to poo-poo the hair thing. But I remember asking my hair stylist if she could recommend a hair style that would withstand a bike helmet. Note, I'm not that picky about hair style, heck, I drive a convertable, wind blown is just fine. I was going on a tour of France, and when I got off the bike to tour the towns and cathedrals I just wanted to look presentable. She had no answer at all. She had a few other clients that were semi pro lady cyclists, and even the pony tail look still gave them matted ridges after a long ride. After my daughter gave up her bike I started thinking about it. And I found that, since I have car keys, if I had just showered and finally wrestled my hair into submission I would drive rather than ride my bike to do errands, even when it would obviously be faster to ride the bike. (We have a ton of cut through paths around here, routes on a bike are often much shorter than the same route in a car. Also parking around shops and schools are such that parking a car would require a much longer walk than parking a bike.) So then I started to think about the helmet, and whether I needed it to run errands on the same streets I'm willing to walk or run on without a helmet, and decided if the deciding factor for biking or driving was really the helmet, I'd just leave the helmet at home and ride the bike. The safety factor of the helmet was offset by the extra exercise I was getting. Note: when I do personal risk assessments I take into account I've been biking for many years, including the 4+ years I went to college in Davis. I have never fallen and hit my head while on a bike. I have hit my head on a curb while running and knocked my self out taking a flying header into the ice playing broom ball. Neither time was I wearing a helmet. Neither time did I die. (Though the injuries from the fall while running did look suspiciously like I wiped out on a bike, road rash all the way down one side...) Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer, figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that.       Date: 01 Jun 2006 09:53:55 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Cathy Kearns wrote: > Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer, > figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I > don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are > so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that. > You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning heading in soccer http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci         Date: 02 Jun 2006 00:03:29 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <4e7o97F1bglsmU1@individual.net >, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer, > > figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I > > don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are > > so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that. > > > > You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning > heading in soccer > http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html Heading is too difficult to do properly in a fast game, as one usually cannot bring the correct area of the skull to bear; and too easy to hurt oneself. There is one portion of the skull that can be used as a mallet: the dome near and above the hairline on the forehead. That point can be found by tapping a pencil around that area. Saw an ice hockey game where a Russian player new to the NHL got into a fight with an opposing player. They each had a two handed grip on the other, then the Russian butted the opponent's face. Opponent went down like a sack of potatoes. Apparently nutting is illegal in the NHL. A heavy blow can be delivered without hurting oneself. -- Michael Press           Date: 02 Jun 2006 09:59:37 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Michael Press wrote: > >> You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning >> heading in soccer >> http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html > > Heading is too difficult to do properly in a fast game, as > one usually cannot bring the correct area of the skull to > bear; and too easy to hurt oneself. > http://www.athletics.mcgill.ca/sportsmed_interest_details.ch2?article_id=714 Soccer Headgear: Does It Do Any Good? By JERE LONGMAN Published: November 27, 2004 Associated Press Most soccer players on the Santa Clara University women's team will enter the N.C.A.A. quarterfinals today wearing protective equipment - headgear - that is as controversial as it is lightweight. In the 15 months since FIFA, soccer's world governing body, began permitting its use, headgear has been worn by thousands of American players from youth leagues to high schools to colleges to the pros. The headgear gained international visibility during the 2003 Women's World Cup and the Athens Olympics this summer. This has triggered skepticism within the United States Soccer Federation, which contends that keting to the fears of parents has trumped science regarding the effectiveness of headgear in preventing concussions. This resistance has not dissuaded some youth clubs from requiring the use of headgear. "I remember when baseball players didn't wear batting helmets," said Steve Ryan, commissioner of the Major Indoor Soccer League, which approves of headgear. "You see some resistance in soccer, which is natural. But I expect, over time, you will see it broadly accepted." The founder of a San Diego-based company called Full90 said he had sold 100,000 pieces of headgear. The headgear resembles an enlarged headband, weighs less than 2 ounces, and covers the forehead, temples and occipital bone in back of the head. The device is made of shock-absorbing foam situated between an outer layer of Lycra and an inner layer of sweat-absorbing polypropylene. Several models are available for $24 to $39. Full90 does not claim that its headgear prevents concussions. But the company does say the headgear can reduce, by up to 50 percent, the peak impact forces that occur during typical collisions when a player's head strikes another head, the ground, an elbow or a goal post. The headgear debate is occurring at a time when some studies indicate that concussions occur in soccer at a rate similar to the rate in football. There also is disagreement on whether heading the ball can cause concussions or long-term brain impairment. Studies have presented contradictory results, and the matter remains disputed as the soccer federation undertakes a long-term examination of head injuries. The resolution of these head-related issues could have far-reaching health and financial impacts, given that nearly 18 million people play soccer in the United States. On one side of the headgear argument is Jeff Skeen, founder of Full90. He said he developed the protective device after his daughter Lauren suffered two soccer-related concussions in high school, causing her to quit the sport. At 46, Skeen possesses the righteousness of the aggrieved parent. He believes his product can reduce head injuries without giving an illicit advantage in heading the ball. The soccer federation, which permits headgear but does not endorse it, fears that its wide use would undermine the assertion that soccer is a safe alternative to football, Skeen said. He likens the doubt of soccer officials to familiar but failed arguments once made against the use of bicycle helmets, automobile seat belts and soccer shin guards. "They are trying to thwart the evolution of headgear in soccer because they think it will scare soccer moms away from the sign-up table," Skeen said of soccer federation officials. "And because they think it could be viewed as an admission that heading the ball itself is dangerous." Calvin Williams, founder of the Kangaroo headgear company, said he thought soccer officials resisted the equipment because they felt "it is sissified." Soccer federation officials disagree, saying their caution is based on scientific uncertainty. Insufficient independent evidence exists to confirm that headgear can reduce the risk of head injuries, they say. Doctors affiliated with the federation also say that headgear is being keted priily to children, who least need them because there is little incidence of concussions in players under the age of 12. Players might develop a false sense of security, relying on headgear instead of proper medical evaluation after suffering a concussion, federation doctors say. Or, they say, players might feel invincible in headgear and play with reckless aggressiveness, displaying behavior known as the Superman effect. Rather than headgear, federation officials advocate better technique, stricter rules enforcement and improved officiating to reduce the number of head injuries. Some also recommend mouth guards and padded goal posts instead of padded headgear. "There is no evidence headgear are going to help, and some theoretical stuff that it could hurt," said Dr. Gary Green, a clinical professor at the U.C.L.A. division of sports medicine who is on the soccer federation's medical advisory committee. "Why take a chance until this gets studied?" Because Full90 pays some pro players (the equivalent of $50 to $100 per game, it says) and some state soccer associations ($4,000 to $10,000) to endorse its product, the soccer federation says the company's claims are suspect. "We're talking about keting and fear and manipulation," said Dr. Bert Mandelbaum, team physician for the United States national teams. Not all medical soccer experts oppose headgear. Dr. J. Scott Delaney of McGill University in Montreal said laboratory data, not yet published, does indicate that headgear could reduce impact forces by 10 to 30 percent. (The soccer federation says this involves low-level forces that don't cause concussions.) Delaney said an industry standard for headgear has been drafted and could be instituted in May. In a study, published in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, Delaney queried 328 Canadian university football players and 201 university soccer players as they reported to fall training camp in 1999. He found that 70.4 percent of the football players and 62.7 percent of the soccer players had experienced symptoms of a concussion in the previous year. "We've shown concussions are a problem, and in the lab these things work," Delaney said of headgear. "What else do you need? Why wouldn't you start protecting people?" Studies involving large numbers of players can occur only after headgear is used widely, said Delaney, who is team physician for the McGill soccer team and the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League. The concern over concussions, and whether headgear can protect against them, is a growing issue for youth soccer associations. In September, the New York State West Youth Soccer Association, which governs more than 200 clubs and 80,000 youths in the Buffalo-Rochester area, voted to require headgear for all players under 14. The association later retreated over concerns about liability and protests from some coaches and officials. Several coaches interviewed in Rochester wondered why headgear were proposed for young children and not for older teenagers, who are more likely to get concussions. Others said risk was inherent in any sport. "Where are you going to draw the line? Make everyone wear knee braces?" said Tom Maines, who coaches an under-10 boys team in Brockport, N.Y. Some players resist headgear on aesthetic grounds. "It looks goofy," said Brittany Myles, 13, of Syracuse. Ross Paule, a midfielder for the Columbus Crew of Major League Soccer, wore Full90 headgear for a dozen games in the recently completed season, seeking some security after suffering three earlier concussions. "I'm on the fence," said Paule, who was not paid to endorse the headgear. "I don't agree it should be mandated. If something makes you comfortable, why not?" He added: "I can't tell you if it was a huge help. When I got hit one time, maybe it gave me a little extra cushion." Any club or association that makes headgear compulsory risks losing its affiliation with the United States Soccer Federation, Dr. S. Robert Contiguglia, its president, said. But that threat is either unknown or ignored by the Temecula Valley Soccer Association in Southern California, which for three seasons has required headgear for players under 8. Peter Schilperoort, president of the association, said headgear prevented bumps and cuts previously suffered by his players, calling the equipment "the best thing since sliced bread." The De Anza Force soccer club of Cupertino, Calif., will require headgear for players under 17 beginning in ch, said Tom Pridham, a club official. Both the Temecula and De Anza clubs are sponsored by Full90. Jerry Smith, coach of the Santa Clara women's team, which received free headgear from Full90, said the equipment made his players more confident in challenging balls in the air, and more assertive, but not overly so. Anson Dorrance, who has coached the women's team at North Carolina to 18 national championships, said compulsory use of shin guards had not changed the nature of soccer, as many feared. He predicted that headgear would not, either. "I'd challenge any of these doctors who feel this has no value to run into the goal post without a Full90 and with it, then tell me, if they were forced to do it a third time, whether or not they would wear it," said Dorrance, whose team is also sponsored by Full90. Several players, including Joy Fawcett of the United States women's national team, who endorses Full90, discounted the so-called the Superman effect, saying the headgear did not make players dangerously aggressive. "It's like a flag that reminds you not to go up for stupid plays," said Jill Conaboy, a defender at Downingtown West High in suburban Philadelphia, who wore headgear last weekend as her team won the Pennsylvania Class AAA state championship. Kathy Conaboy, Jill's mother, said she held no illusion that her daughter, who has suffered two concussions, would never be hurt again while wearing headgear. What she hopes, she said, is that a blow that might have caused a third concussion will result in only a bruise. "A seat belt is not going to save a life in a 90-mile-per-hour crash into a wall," Kathy Conaboy said. "A 30-mile-per-hour crash, a fender bender, it helps. I'm looking at this as a seat belt." -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci   Date: 30 May 2006 11:46:24 From: VerusEx@comcast.net Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20 years and have been hit by cars twice. Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the middle of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly across the road from a cross street through the group of riders. How lucky can you be. In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike and landed by hitting my head on the curbing. The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing. The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. But I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet saved my life. The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop sign and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike and I was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. This must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest of my body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my right leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of bruises. My helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was happy to replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two things I take away from these incidents: 1. Stay off of that street 2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home. Roland Dover, NH ebent.com     Date: 31 May 2006 15:33:30 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting VerusEx@comcast.net <VerusEx@comcast.net >: >I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet >saved my life. >replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. Oooh, _two_ life threatening incidents. You must be very unlucky; I've never had even _one_ accident in which, helmetless, I would have suffered any serious head injury, let alone been killed. The sheer number of saved-my-life stories illustrates they are nonsense. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato! Today is Tuesday, June.       Date: 31 May 2006 10:47:28 From: David Kerber Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <E2q*oP2hr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk >, damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk says... > Quoting VerusEx@comcast.net <VerusEx@comcast.net>: > >I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet > >saved my life. > >replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. > > Oooh, _two_ life threatening incidents. You must be very unlucky; I've > never had even _one_ accident in which, helmetless, I would have suffered > any serious head injury, let alone been killed. > > The sheer number of saved-my-life stories illustrates they are nonsense. Not really; it just illustrates that people don't realize just how tough a head actually is, and how hard it is to kill someone with a straight head impact. In the vast majority of those cases, they would most likely have received a concussion of some greater or lesser severity (or perhaps just a nasty bruise or cut). That doesn't mean the helmet didn't reduce the severity of the injury, though. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).         Date: 31 May 2006 15:56:43 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Kerber wrote: > > That doesn't mean the helmet > didn't reduce the severity of the injury, though. > Recognising that optimal performance removes no more than 10-15% of the energy needed to fracture a skull. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci     Date: 30 May 2006 23:57:22 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <VerusEx@comcast.net > wrote in message news:1149014784.406643.87170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20 > years and have been hit by cars twice. > > Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the middle > of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly across the > road from a cross street through the group of riders. How lucky can you > be. > > In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike and > landed by hitting my head on the curbing. > > The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the > air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It > must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely > across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing. > The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was > stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and > fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. But > I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet > saved my life. > > The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same > street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop sign > and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike and I > was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. This > must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest of my > body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my right > leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of bruises. My > helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was happy to > replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. > > I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two > things I take away from these incidents: > > 1. Stay off of that street > > 2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home. > > Roland > > Dover, NH > ebent.com > Blasphemer!!! How dare you bring your personal experience with the ostensible injury reducing benefits of a helmet into this hallowed intellectual discussion? Since you've raised the issue, be prepared to hear that: 1) You're a very poor cyclist. "Real" cyclists never get hit by cars, or fall down. 2) Your injuries were worse than they would otherwise have been due to the presence of the helmet on your head (rotational forces increased due to additional circumference and weight, etc., etc.). Be thankful that you're still alive given your ridiculous choice in headgear. 3) You would have survived those head impacts just as well, if not better, if you had been wearing a proper cotton cycling cap (or, better yet, nothing at all). 4) You've clearly not studied the available research which proves (to some AHZ stalwarts anyway) that wearing helmets increases the risk of head injuries (unless you wear one while showering). With tongue firmly in cheek (and thanks for sharing some real world experience)... GG       Date: 31 May 2006 10:09:43 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > writes: > <VerusEx@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1149014784.406643.87170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20 >> years and have been hit by cars twice. >> >> Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the middle >> of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly across the >> road from a cross street through the group of riders. How lucky can you >> be. >> >> In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike and >> landed by hitting my head on the curbing. >> >> The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the >> air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It >> must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely >> across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing. >> The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was >> stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and >> fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. But >> I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet >> saved my life. >> >> The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same >> street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop sign >> and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike and I >> was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. This >> must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest of my >> body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my right >> leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of bruises. My >> helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was happy to >> replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. >> >> I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two >> things I take away from these incidents: >> >> 1. Stay off of that street >> >> 2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home. >> >> Roland >> >> Dover, NH >> ebent.com >> > > Blasphemer!!! How dare you bring your personal experience with the > ostensible injury reducing benefits of a helmet into this hallowed > intellectual discussion? > > Since you've raised the issue, be prepared to hear that: > > 1) You're a very poor cyclist. "Real" cyclists never get hit by cars, or > fall down. Peter? Is that you? > > 2) Your injuries were worse than they would otherwise have been due to the > presence of the helmet on your head (rotational forces increased due to > additional circumference and weight, etc., etc.). Be thankful that you're > still alive given your ridiculous choice in headgear. It is! > > 3) You would have survived those head impacts just as well, if not better, > if you had been wearing a proper cotton cycling cap (or, better yet, nothing > at all). Yep. Its you alright. But why didnt you advocate wearing it for walking to the toilet too because statistically .... blah blah blah. > > 4) You've clearly not studied the available research which proves (to some > AHZ stalwarts anyway) that wearing helmets increases the risk of head > injuries (unless you wear one while showering).     Date: 30 May 2006 19:48:26 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? VerusEx@comcast.net wrote: > I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20 > years and have been hit by cars twice. > > Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the > middle of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly > across the road from a cross street through the group of riders. How > lucky can you be. > > In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike > and landed by hitting my head on the curbing. > > The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the > air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It > must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely > across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing. > The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was > stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and > fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. > But I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet > saved my life. > > The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same > street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop > sign and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike > and I was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. > This must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest > of my body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my > right leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of > bruises. My helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was > happy to replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life. > > I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two > things I take away from these incidents: > > 1. Stay off of that street > > 2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home. > > Roland > > Dover, NH > ebent.com Sorry, Roland, your personal experiences and subsequent decisions are not considered valid in there NGs. Go read some "studies". HTH, BS       Date: 30 May 2006 19:50:54 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Sorry, Roland, your personal experiences and subsequent decisions are > not considered valid in there NGs. Go read some "studies". HTH, BS s/b "these" NGs (for those who think I meant "their"?)...   Date: 27 May 2006 19:31:06 From: polly Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them.     Date: 30 May 2006 09:03:40 From: David Kerber Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, plly_perkins@hotmail.com says... > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).       Date: 30 May 2006 18:38:07 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:03:40 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com > wrote: >In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >plly_perkins@hotmail.com says... >> How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > >Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. Sweet. Maybe we can do that with all cyclists. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 30 May 2006 14:57:49 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com > wrote in message news:MPG.1ee60cb47f6d86d9989960@news.conversent.net... > In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > plly_perkins@hotmail.com says... > > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > > Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)         Date: 30 May 2006 18:40:53 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Cathy Kearns <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com >: >"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in message >>Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. >Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other >decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior >high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she takes up smoking, too? -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Distortion Field! Today is Monday, June.           Date: 30 May 2006 19:46:06 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Damerell wrote: > Quoting Cathy Kearns <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com>: >> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in >> message >>> Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. >> Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The >> other decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she >> entered junior high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. > So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that > child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she > takes up smoking, too? A "large negative effect on that child's life expectancy"??? Damn it all, Damnitall -- you're being a weasel. Again. Walking 3 miles a day probably affords /more/ health benefits than cycling the same distance. More constant "work" (no coasting); less danger of accidents & injuries, too. (Here we go.) You've outdone even yourself. BS (really)           Date: 30 May 2006 19:01:41 From: Kevan Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in news:P0b*PdYhr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk: > Quoting Cathy Kearns <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com>: >>"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in >>message >>>Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. >>Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The >>other decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she >>entered junior high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. > > So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that > child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she > takes up smoking, too? Well, the kid is still _walking_ three miles a day. That's good exercise, too. KS         Date: 30 May 2006 16:23:14 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Cathy Kearns wrote: > > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.) > > Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci       Date: 30 May 2006 14:16:10 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Kerber wrote: > In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > plly_perkins@hotmail.com says... >> How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > > Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. Simple, as long as you don't mind putting them off riding, which is what compulsion has a proven track record of doing. And since riding isn't especially dangerous of productive of head injuries, why do that? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 30 May 2006 16:26:51 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > David Kerber wrote: >> In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> plly_perkins@hotmail.com says... >>> How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. >> Simple: tell them they can't ride without one. > > Simple, as long as you don't mind putting them off riding, which is > what compulsion has a proven track record of doing. And since riding > isn't especially dangerous of productive of head injuries, why do that? If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit his/her head on the kerb would that child 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame 2) Come out injury free 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling 4) Be better off with a helmet 5) Some or all of the above?           Date: 30 May 2006 16:05:46 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit > his/her head on the kerb would that child > > 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame No > 2) Come out injury free For some values of "injury". If falling over and banging one's head was so often serious and fatal then we'd have been experiencing carbage in playgrounds and on streets for centuries. Yet he have not. > 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling First quite possible (see previous point), though they'd probably be clutching their head and bawling. Just as they would if they'd fallen over and hit their head playing chase. > 4) Be better off with a helmet Too many variables in too wide a set of contexts to really answer sensibly If they would clearly be better off with it then why wouldn't they clearly be better off with it when running and jumping, since such activities cause far more child injuries than cycling. They're more proportionately productive of head injuries too? You are still implying the case that cycling is a special case and needs more protection than running and jumping, while the evidence suggests otherwise. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 30 May 2006 17:20:01 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit >> his/her head on the kerb would that child >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > > No > >> 2) Come out injury free > > For some values of "injury". If falling over and banging one's head > was so often serious and fatal then we'd have been experiencing > carbage in playgrounds and on streets for centuries. Yet he have not. > >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > > First quite possible (see previous point), though they'd probably be > clutching their head and bawling. Just as they would if they'd fallen > over and hit their head playing chase. > >> 4) Be better off with a helmet > > Too many variables in too wide a set of contexts to really answer > sensibly If they would clearly be better off with it then why > wouldn't they clearly be better off with it when running and jumping, > since such activities cause far more child injuries than cycling. > They're more proportionately productive of head injuries too? > > You are still implying the case that cycling is a special case and > needs more protection than running and jumping, while the evidence > suggests otherwise. No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous conditions in rush hour traffic.               Date: 30 May 2006 18:46:18 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than other practices. Lame. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                 Date: 30 May 2006 22:51:06 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark > <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. > That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it > requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than > other practices. Let's see... {looking at the NG field} Yup, just what I thought. These are cycling newsgroups. Now if there's a helmet thread in a...say, skateboarding NG or a rollerblading NG or a /walking/ NG, then perhaps the members of those groups would restrict their discussions to those activities. At least ideally. > Lame. Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're right.                   Date: 31 May 2006 09:38:27 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:u%3fg.82$Ah.43@tornado.socal.rr.com... > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark > > <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. > > > That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it > > requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than > > other practices. > > Let's see... {looking at the NG field} Yup, just what I thought. These are > cycling newsgroups. > > Now if there's a helmet thread in a...say, skateboarding NG or a > rollerblading NG or a /walking/ NG, then perhaps the members of those groups > would restrict their discussions to those activities. At least ideally. > > > Lame. > > Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're right. > Where is the insult/"put-down"?                     Date: 31 May 2006 17:05:36 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message > news:u%3fg.82$Ah.43@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark >>> <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. >> >>> That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it >>> requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than >>> other practices. >> >> Let's see... {looking at the NG field} Yup, just what I thought. >> These are cycling newsgroups. >> >> Now if there's a helmet thread in a...say, skateboarding NG or a >> rollerblading NG or a /walking/ NG, then perhaps the members of >> those groups would restrict their discussions to those activities. >> At least ideally. >> >>> Lame. >> >> Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're >> right. >> > > Where is the insult/"put-down"? I guess John meant "lame" in a complimetary sense. (After his other sarcastic comment, of course.)                       Date: 31 May 2006 15:53:53 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:A1kfg.7552$G95.5865@tornado.socal.rr.com... > >> > >>> Lame. > >> > >> Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're > >> right. > >> > > > > Where is the insult/"put-down"? > > I guess John meant "lame" in a complimetary sense. (After his other > sarcastic comment, of course.) > Can you not distinguish between a comment on the quality of an argument and an insult? Let me give you some examples of the latter: "asshole" "jackass" "pompous gasbag" Perhaps you'll recognise them.               Date: 30 May 2006 13:55:51 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87bqtfy1y6.fsf@news.europe.ch... > > No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who > who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking > down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous > conditions in rush hour traffic. Well, actually, it is a great many researchers who have looked at the numbers and found out that this is, indeed, true. Now, what about making those Children wear helmets?               Date: 30 May 2006 16:40:26 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who > who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking > down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous > conditions in rush hour traffic. The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking. It's also a matter of public record that pedestrian serious injuries have a greater proportion of head injuries than cyclists. So that's what I'm convinced of. While you like to think you are "only discussing cycling", what the real issue is is how to deal with risks. It makes no consistent sense at all to wear a helmet for one mildly risky activity but not another where risks and consequences are similar (and demonstrably similar through public records, whatever your intuition may tell you). Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                 Date: 30 May 2006 23:12:17 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4e37bbF1cs9a9U1@individual.net... > Hadron Quark wrote: > > > No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who > > who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking > > down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous > > conditions in rush hour traffic. > > The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally > pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer > serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking. What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that their rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway, that would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to. > It's also a > matter of public record that pedestrian serious injuries have a greater > proportion of head injuries than cyclists. So that's what I'm convinced > of. Why do you suppose that is? Are cyclists so much safer? Or, could it be that the head injuries for both cases are priily due to being struck by cars, and that cyclists with their higher average speeds suffer less from the differential speeds (e.g., a ped walking at 3 mph being struck by a 30 mph car would suffer more trauma than a cyclist travelling 15 mph being struck by the same car...assuming an "overtaking" scenario). GG > While you like to think you are "only discussing cycling", what the real > issue is is how to deal with risks. It makes no consistent sense at all > to wear a helmet for one mildly risky activity but not another where > risks and consequences are similar (and demonstrably similar through > public records, whatever your intuition may tell you). > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                   Date: 31 May 2006 09:37:25 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:srafg.182$hu6.32@fe05.lga... > > The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally > > pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer > > serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking. > > What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on > average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that their > rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway, that > would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to. > It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any measure they are not worth considering. A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a day. The percentage of _those_ deaths that are due to head injuries that somehow could have been miraculously prevented by a 1 inch thick foam hat is also SO small that really, helmet wearing and MHLs should just not exist. No one wears a helmet in the shower. No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street. 37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet compulsion laws.                     Date: 31 May 2006 14:45:39 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > > It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any > measure they are not worth considering. > > A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a > day. The percentage of _those_ deaths that are due to head injuries that > somehow could have been miraculously prevented by a 1 inch thick foam hat is > also SO small that really, helmet wearing and MHLs should just not exist. > Indeed in a study of cyclist head injury deaths, sixteen of the nineteen cases studied had other fatal injuries so would have died irrespective of what happened to their heads. The other three, including the only one of the nineteen that was wearing a helmet, died from head injuries alone. If that carried across to the whole population that would put the number of US cyclist killed by only head injuries at the same level as the number of people killed by lightning in the US -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                     Date: 31 May 2006 06:07:53 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:G7gfg.24291$43.2732@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message > news:srafg.182$hu6.32@fe05.lga... > > > > The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally > > > pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer > > > serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking. > > > > What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on > > average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that their > > rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway, > that > > would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to. > > > > It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any > measure they are not worth considering. > > A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a > day. Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of death while driving? And, how about the injury rate? > The percentage of _those_ deaths that are due to head injuries that > somehow could have been miraculously prevented by a 1 inch thick foam hat is > also SO small that really, helmet wearing and MHLs should just not exist. And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling. And even the AHZ's admit that helmets confer *some* degree of protection, so I'll continue to accept the limitation of helmets in return for the risk they *can* mitigate. > No one wears a helmet in the shower. I would if I were showering at 30 kph in traffic! > No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street. > > 37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet > compulsion laws. Who's talking about compulsion (besides you AHZ's)? GG > > >                       Date: 31 May 2006 23:37:02 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 31 May 2006 06:07:53 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: > >> No one wears a helmet in the shower. > >I would if I were showering at 30 kph in traffic! A helmet affords precious little protection in the case of a traffic accident. They are only built to protect at speeds approximating that of walking. They would give more adequate protection to the head in the event of a slip & fall in the shower, but one would have to exercise extreme caution when said helmet were removed to facilitate cleaning one's hair. > >> No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street. But aren't more people hurt while crossing the street than while cycling? Indiana Mike >> >> 37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet >> compulsion laws. > >Who's talking about compulsion (besides you AHZ's)? > >GG > >> >> >> >                       Date: 31 May 2006 15:31:31 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: >> >> A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a >> day. > > Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of > death while driving? And, how about the injury rate? > Its about one death per 20 million miles of cycling. How long would it take you to cycle that far. Its much much lower than the risk of death from natural causes. > > And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling. And every day many more people are injured and killed by trips, slips, falls and assaults, all or which would have been mitigated by their wearing a helmet. In the list of risky activities bicycling is right down there with a whole range of other everyday activities that do not require special protective clothing. So why single cycling out? -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                         Date: 31 May 2006 23:43:23 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 31 May 2006 15:31:31 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >GaryG wrote: >>> >>> A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a >>> day. >> >> Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of >> death while driving? And, how about the injury rate? >> > >Its about one death per 20 million miles of cycling. How long would it >take you to cycle that far. Its much much lower than the risk of death >from natural causes. > >> >> And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling. > >And every day many more people are injured and killed by trips, slips, >falls and assaults, all or which would have been mitigated by their >wearing a helmet. > >In the list of risky activities bicycling is right down there with a >whole range of other everyday activities that do not require special >protective clothing. So why single cycling out? There's money, good money, to be made. And it's pretty obvious that the 'common sense factor' helps the effort along. Indiana Mike           Date: 30 May 2006 15:40:27 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit > his/her head on the kerb would that child > > 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > 2) Come out injury free > 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > 4) Be better off with a helmet > 5) Some or all of the above? The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3. If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on a kerb would that child 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame 2) Come out injury free 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling 4) Be better off with a helmet 5) Some or all of the above? This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year olds wear helmets all the time? -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci             Date: 29 Jun 2006 20:53:32 From: Taunto Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit >> his/her head on the kerb would that child >> >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame >> 2) Come out injury free >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling >> 4) Be better off with a helmet >> 5) Some or all of the above? > > > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3. > > If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on > a kerb would that child > > 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > 2) Come out injury free > 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > 4) Be better off with a helmet > 5) Some or all of the above? > > This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and > the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater > proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling > injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year > olds wear helmets all the time? > If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb: 1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him 2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet 3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held responsible for their actions. 4. Be better off without a helmet. 5. Some or all of the above.               Date: 30 Jun 2006 08:24:21 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Taunto" <nope@notme.com > wrote in message news:44a4a0b7$0$12693$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > > If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike > clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb: > > 1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him > 2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet > 3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held > responsible for their actions. > 4. Be better off without a helmet. > 5. Some or all of the above. > 4.             Date: 30 May 2006 17:16:16 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and >> hit >> his/her head on the kerb would that child >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame >> 2) Come out injury free >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling >> 4) Be better off with a helmet >> 5) Some or all of the above? > > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3. > > If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head > on a kerb would that child Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner?               Date: 30 May 2006 13:54:16 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87k683y24f.fsf@news.europe.ch... > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > > > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and > >> hit > >> his/her head on the kerb would that child > >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame > >> 2) Come out injury free > >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling > >> 4) Be better off with a helmet > >> 5) Some or all of the above? > > > > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3. > > > > Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner? That's avoiding the question. Lets give you another go: "If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on a kerb would that child 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame 2) Come out injury free 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling 4) Be better off with a helmet 5) Some or all of the above?"               Date: 30 May 2006 16:28:56 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner? Does he make a regular habit of falling out of his chair and hurting himself? If yes it might well be appropriate, otherwise it's probably too much fuss for averting a risk that's not likely to happen and not likely to cause a big problem if it does. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 28 May 2006 13:39:42 From: mike Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "polly" <plly_perkins@hotmail.com > wrote in news:1148783465.995697.167040 @i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > where one yourself....     Date: 28 May 2006 07:21:20 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "polly" <plly_perkins@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > Don't. See? That was simple.     Date: 28 May 2006 07:55:44 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <1148783465.995697.167040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "polly" <plly_perkins@hotmail.com > wrote: > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. Do you want other kids calling your kids mushrooms? -- Michael Press       Date: 28 May 2006 09:47:14 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Michael Press wrote: > >> How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them. > > Do you want other kids calling your kids mushrooms? > Because of their appearance or because they are fed on BS? ;-) -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci   Date: 14 May 2006 10:41:15 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? I don't use a helmet during the day, because there is no sun protection, for cancer; so I use a wide golfers type hat. I don't use a helmet at night, because they're so ugly! I do own one, So I'm trying to get over the "looks" thing. waterboy   Date: 12 May 2006 22:18:24 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? MykalCrooks wrote: > > > Umm...not meaning to rain on anybody's parade here, but the frequency at > which I bang my head on the ground while cycling--at least when considering > the potential finality of consequences--does qualify as a habit. Lest anyone misinterpret my attitude: I don't think that helmets are useless for absolutely everyone. I knew one young woman who was definitely accident prone. For example, I saw her fall off her bike while standing stock-still at a stop sign. I saw her fall while walking across a parking lot without her bike. I saw her fall while trying to load her bike into the trunk of her car. And I saw her quit riding for a long while because she'd broken her arm by falling when skiing. Some people will be on the tail end of the "normal curve." For people who fall frequently enough to call it a "habit," pehaps a helmet may be of value. But those folks should probably give consideration to learning how to preven falls! Then, consider something more robust, like an absolutely bottom of the line bike helmet, or (better) a motorcycle helmet. More ordinary people average hundreds of years of cycling, statistically speaking, between serious head injuries. Perhaps those people should just ride for, say, 100 years, _then_ purchase a helmet? ;-) - Frank Krygowski   Date: 12 May 2006 08:07:29 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > Frank impled that in the bit I've copied below: > > Frank: > > If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak > > capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But > > population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. > > Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not > > beneficial. > > > > > The main point is if you're not in the habit of banging your head on the > > ground at all then whether you're wearing a helmet or a cap isn't really > > an issue. And cyclists (at least roadgoing a to b cyclists) don't hit > > their heads against the ground that often, not particularly more than > > classes of people that feel no need to wear helmets, so why should > > cyclists feel the need? Gary, I wrote the first paragraph above. I did NOT write the second paragraph. And in any case, neither paragraph says what you claim. I think you need to slow down in your posting. > No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground, any more than > auto drivers are in the habit of driving into walls or other vehicles at > speed...but, clearly these things do happen and in both cases appropriate > safety devices are routinely employed, though rarely needed. Auto drivers are not in the habit of smashing their skulls into the driver windows, or driver door frames, or B pillars, or roofs of their cars, or other hard objects. Yet these items cause the largest number of serious and fatal head injuries in America every year - despite safety devices like seat belts, air bags etc. The advertising industry has done a great job of selling massive vehicles with exploding cushions, pretending a person is practically invulnerable in such a thing. But such vehicles are still the number one source of HI fatalities, killing those people inside them. In other words, the impression created by the sellers is false. The advertising industry has also done a great job of convincing people that simple bike riding is a horrendous source of serious head injury. And they've convinced many people that a very flimsy hat makes cyclists practically invulnerable. But once again, the impression created by the sellers is false. Cycling is, very roughly, about as dangerous as motoring, even with a bareheaded cyclist and an air-bagged motorist. Neither is very bad. Putting a 14 mph helmet on the cyclist makes no detectable difference in that fact. What you've been made to believe is false. > In my own case, in the last 15 years of regular cycling my head has impacted > the ground on several occasions (mostly while mountain biking). If you're going to test your balancing skills and reflexes by bouncing along rocky trails, that's one thing. Don't extrapolate to folks who are riding on smooth roads. There is much more similarity in risk between a city pedestrian and a city cyclist (actually, the cyclist is much safer) than between an adventurous mountain biker and a city cyclist. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 10 May 2006 19:43:36 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than > > running: > >> 5) more prone to slip stream > > > > This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a > > stability problem due to "slipstream." > > The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars. I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream" even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing. > >> 6) more prone to cross winds > > > > Ditto. > > Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are > clearly very lucky. If someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck. I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult as you're pretending, either. Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet > > Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475. > > Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for > > her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as > > bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists. > > (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a > > well-developed, westernized urban area.) > > > > Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than > > for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume, > > walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners. > > > > Read the paper and see the numbers. > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial > in this case. If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not beneficial. Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more preventable head injuries there, by far. But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 15 May 2006 06:18:21 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > >> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already > >> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection. and: > What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of > protection. and > I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Mr. "Quark," judging by the above, you seem to be saying: a) the protection provided by a helmet is somewhat greater than absolute zero b) despite that, it's perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to choose not to wear a helmet. If I'm interpreting your statements correctly, we have no quarrel on those points. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 15 May 2006 17:47:38 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Mr. "Quark," judging by the above, you seem to be saying: > > a) the protection provided by a helmet is somewhat greater than > absolute zero > If I'm interpreting your statements correctly, we have no quarrel on > those points. Ummm, some. Whether a helmet provides positive, negative or zero protection depends on circumstances. Mine provided my absolute zero protection when my chim bounced off the pavement, for example. Should be "there are are times when a helmet will provide non-zero protection. That may be positive or, in some cases, negative". Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 11 May 2006 22:57:25 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1147315416.286325.82060@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Hadron Quark wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than > > > running: > > >> 5) more prone to slip stream > > > > > > This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a > > > stability problem due to "slipstream." > > > > The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars. > > I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among > many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to > be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream" > even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing. > > > >> 6) more prone to cross winds > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are > > clearly very lucky. > > If someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that > contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it > thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck. > > I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult > as you're pretending, either. > > Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > > > > One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet > > > Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475. > > > Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for > > > her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as > > > bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists. > > > (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a > > > well-developed, westernized urban area.) > > > > > > Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than > > > for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume, > > > walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners. > > > > > > Read the paper and see the numbers. > > > > > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a > > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial > > in this case. > > If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak > capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But > population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. > Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not > beneficial. > > Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to > motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should > devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more > preventable head injuries there, by far. > > But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of > head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary. > > - Frank Krygowski So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet? Or, are you suggesting that the cotton cycling cap can somehow prevent injuries in the first place (accidents that would occur were one to wear a helmet)? GG       Date: 18 May 2006 20:18:51 From: Ingo Keck Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: [... GaryG completely ignoring what the former poster has written...] > So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground > while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer > than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet? No. "Striking" the head on the ground with force while wearing a cotton cap should usually result in some aching muscles in your shoulder because your brain is bright enough to keep your head as far away from the ground as possible. "Striking" the head on the ground with force while wearing a helmet should result in some injuries to your neck (helmet straps) and your chin/teeth, because due to the extra size of your helmet you won't be able to keep your head away from the ground. In the case that you are participating in a "case control" study like the ones cited in the cochrane review in the moment of your accident, these injuries due to the helmet would result in you being a control case (no head injuries in the helmet region) and would therefor be counted as a case where the helmet has prevented a head injury. What a wonderful way to design a study this way, isn't it? Serious head injuries while cycling are very rare if no motor vehicle is involved in the accident and if the rider does not hit an obstacle with his head. I have heard of only one so far and that rider was wearing a helmet. Ingo.       Date: 12 May 2006 09:27:53 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground > while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer > than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet? I don't see where you inferred that. The main point is if you're not in the habit of banging your head on the ground at all then whether you're wearing a helmet or a cap isn't really an issue. And cyclists (at least roadgoing a to b cyclists) don't hit their heads against the ground that often, not particularly more than classes of people that feel no need to wear helmets, so why should cyclists feel the need? If you're especially worried about banging your head on the ground and the effect it would have there's little reason not to wear one on foot. Especially if you use stairs. Plenty of people admitted to hospital after trips and falls, some of them go straight to the morgue. Yet nobody bothers, because they know the risks don't justify the bother. Why is cycling different? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 12 May 2006 06:19:45 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4civ8aF15d7v2U1@individual.net... > GaryG wrote: > > > So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground > > while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer > > than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet? > > I don't see where you inferred that. Frank impled that in the bit I've copied below: Hadron: > > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a > > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial > > in this case. > Frank: > If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak > capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But > population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. > Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not > beneficial. > > The main point is if you're not in the habit of banging your head on the > ground at all then whether you're wearing a helmet or a cap isn't really > an issue. And cyclists (at least roadgoing a to b cyclists) don't hit > their heads against the ground that often, not particularly more than > classes of people that feel no need to wear helmets, so why should > cyclists feel the need? No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground, any more than auto drivers are in the habit of driving into walls or other vehicles at speed...but, clearly these things do happen and in both cases appropriate safety devices are routinely employed, though rarely needed. In my own case, in the last 15 years of regular cycling my head has impacted the ground on several occasions (mostly while mountain biking). In one case, I took a high-side fall at about 20 mph when my front tire got caught in a rain rut, and the impact to the left side of my head was hard enough to fracture the helmet's styrofoam structure. Since this was on a rock-strewn trail, I was most pleased that: a) I didn't suffer a concussion (presumably because the impact forces were appropriately absorbed by the helmet), and b) my scalp wasn't lacerated by the rocks (something that a cotton cap would not have prevented). FWIW, as a follicly challenged individual, the protection against lacerations is of particular importance to me. > > If you're especially worried about banging your head on the ground and > the effect it would have there's little reason not to wear one on foot. > Especially if you use stairs. Plenty of people admitted to hospital > after trips and falls, some of them go straight to the morgue. Yet > nobody bothers, because they know the risks don't justify the bother. > Why is cycling different? Ummm....we're talking about cycling here. You can argue against wearing helmets while walking in another group :-). -- ~_-* ...G/ \G http://www.CycliStats.com CycliStats - Software for Cyclists > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 13 May 2006 02:52:05 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:uW%8g.2$Jn3.0@fe04.lga... > > No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground, any more than > auto drivers are in the habit of driving into walls or other vehicles at > speed...but, clearly these things do happen and in both cases appropriate > safety devices are routinely employed, though rarely needed. Here's what we're getting at Gary - if you sit down on the ground and you strike your head against the ground by swinging your head at it then indeed a helmet will protect your head from such a injury better than a cotton cycling cap. Maybe you've missed the thousands of times we've said that helmets WILL probably protect you from minor injuries. But in the sort of accidents in which cyclists are seriously injured or killed the forces are so great that the helmet is maxed out and you might as well wear the cotton cap for all the good it does you. Now you might well say (and for the record most of us already assumed) that there is a small group of helmet wearers that would have JUST gotten a serious injury and the helmet reduced it to just a minor injury. That sounds VERY good and we looked very closely at the statistics. No kidding - we were actually hoping to see something. But it just isn't there. IF helmets are making a difference in any head injuries the statistical relevance is approaching zero. > In my own case, in the last 15 years of regular cycling my head has > impacted > the ground on several occasions (mostly while mountain biking). In one > case, I took a high-side fall at about 20 mph when my front tire got > caught > in a rain rut, and the impact to the left side of my head was hard enough > to > fracture the helmet's styrofoam structure. Since this was on a rock-strewn > trail, I was most pleased that: a) I didn't suffer a concussion > (presumably > because the impact forces were appropriately absorbed by the helmet), and > b) my scalp wasn't lacerated by the rocks (something that a cotton cap > would > not have prevented). FWIW, as a follicly challenged individual, the > protection against lacerations is of particular importance to me. I've perhaps a silly question - why do you tell us that you needed a helmet instead of needing to learn to ride better? Is it that you prefer crashing and perhaps overpowering the little protection a helmet can offer and killing yourself because you are convinced that a helmet will save your life regardless? As for experiences - I crashed at high speed on motorcycles riding out in the desert perhaps over a hundred times. This was pretty much before safety helmets so most of these crashes were without a helmet and I struck my head a lot more than once. But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad that I couldn't control my fall. Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a manner that you don't risk your life?             Date: 13 May 2006 09:41:22 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tom Kunich wrote: > Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? And why does everyone assume there must have been regular and widespread head injury related caranage amongst cyclists before helmets were widely available? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 13 May 2006 15:32:32 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Tom Kunich wrote: >> Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? {DO WHAT?!?} > And why does everyone assume there must have been regular and > widespread head injury related caranage amongst cyclists before > helmets were widely available? And why do you (and many other AHZs) over-snip your posts so no one knows to what the heck you're replying?                 Date: 13 May 2006 19:08:20 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > And why do you (and many other AHZs) If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot" territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind is made up. > over-snip your posts so no one knows to > what the heck you're replying? I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless. But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot", which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                   Date: 13 May 2006 21:34:34 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: > >> And why do you (and many other AHZs) > > If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a > cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot" > territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind > is made up. You've since mentioned -- many times -- your change of heart--- er, mind re. lids. >> over-snip your posts so no one knows to >> what the heck you're replying? > > I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my > feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out > stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't > doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless. > But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot", > which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works. I didn't say it had anything to do with helmets; just a trend I've noticed. I believe in and practice trimming as much as anyone. I just try to do it so as to leave the context in tact for the first-time reader of a post. One will note, of course, that you DELETED the reference to WHAT YOU DELETED in the first place! Good form, that :-D             Date: 12 May 2006 23:47:09 From: MykalCrooks Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:pRb9g.3821$u4.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message > news:uW%8g.2$Jn3.0@fe04.lga... >...But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I > knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad > that I couldn't control my fall. > > Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you > pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a > manner that you don't risk your life? > Because not everyone rides as slowly as you? mC               Date: 14 May 2006 01:29:52 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "MykalCrooks" <mc@zipcon.net > wrote in message news:Q8qdnRfZstaXHPjZRVn-pw@comcast.com... > > "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:pRb9g.3821$u4.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message >> news:uW%8g.2$Jn3.0@fe04.lga... > >>...But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I >> knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad >> that I couldn't control my fall. >> >> Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you >> pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a >> manner that you don't risk your life? >> > > Because not everyone rides as slowly as you? Well, you're really the man. How many races have you finished first in? Or are you one of those local club guys who rides really fast so that he can beat in the girls to show what a man he is?             Date: 12 May 2006 20:52:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tom Kunich wrote: > As for experiences - I crashed at high speed on motorcycles riding out in > the desert perhaps over a hundred times. This was pretty much before > safety helmets so most of these crashes were without a helmet and I struck > my head a lot more than once. But I never hit my head harder than a knock > because I knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes > weren't so bad that I couldn't control my fall. > > Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you > pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a > manner that you don't risk your life? You crashed a motorcycle over a hundred times and you are telling him to learn how to control a bike??? At high speed no less and with no helmet. Hell, dude, you can have my 'Ironman' badge. FWIW, mountain biking is about going places and doing things that will probably cause you to crash at some time or another. I crashed a motorcycle at high speed exactly once, and with no helmet or leathers, trashing the bike and giving me 2 weeks off work with 'road rash supreme'. Did you total your bike a hundred times? Did you get road rash even once? Did you do it twice? Are you a redneck? If you rolled your tractor would you brag about it? I may have just lost my bullshit status. ROTFLMAO Bill Baka           Date: 12 May 2006 17:11:17 From: MykalCrooks Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:uW%8g.2$Jn3.0@fe04.lga... > > No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground,... > Umm...not meaning to rain on anybody's parade here, but the frequency at which I bang my head on the ground while cycling--at least when considering the potential finality of consequences--does qualify as a habit. I think its the topography of the consequences that counts. If you kill yourself once, it's an isolated incident. But kill yourself twice, and you go on record as being rekably habitual. Same with head banging--a couple or few times is a nasty habit if ever there was one. Thus, over the decades, I've a demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it. And so I wear a helmet. Mykal Crooks             Date: 13 May 2006 09:39:14 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? MykalCrooks wrote: > Thus, over the decades, I've a > demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it. > And so I wear a helmet. Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly? And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those either. Nor does anyone else I see. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 13 May 2006 15:23:28 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > MykalCrooks wrote: > >> Thus, over the decades, I've a >> demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it. > >> And so I wear a helmet. > > Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of > kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a > helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly? Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph? > And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping > and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those > either. Nor does anyone else I see. Much slower speeds; much lower forces. (Not to mention much softer surface, at least for XC skiing.)                 Date: 14 May 2006 01:35:36 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com > wrote in message news:QRm9g.2309$G95.2196@tornado.socal.rr.com... > Peter Clinch wrote: >> MykalCrooks wrote: >> >>> Thus, over the decades, I've a >>> demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it. >> >>> And so I wear a helmet. >> >> Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of >> kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a >> helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly? > > Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph? A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy into the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your head. Turning around fast and hitting your head can exceed this speed. In fact, one of the larger sources of fatal head injuries are accidents in the home. I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head injuries and bicycling isn't among them?                   Date: 14 May 2006 09:31:09 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Per Tom Kunich: >I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a >bicycle One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading. Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so the object doesn't cave in your skull. -- PeteCresswell                     Date: 14 May 2006 12:12:46 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:31:09 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote: >Per Tom Kunich: >>I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a >>bicycle > >One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading. > >Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a >curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of >acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so >the object doesn't cave in your skull. Dear Pete, My impression from reading the studies is that (despite our lurid but understandable imaginations) most serious head injuries in bicycling are not penetrating, not fractures, and not caving-in. But I haven't browsed around again to check this, so I'm just raising the question because it seems to address your point. Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 14 May 2006 15:33:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? (PeteCresswell) wrote: > One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading. > > Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a > curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of > acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so > the object doesn't cave in your skull. The same kerbs are available to pedestrians to hit their heads on, as are the edges of steps. In the UK around 350 people under the gae of 75 are killed each year in trips and falls, so it's certainly possible to kill yourself on them, and without a bike too. So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                       Date: 14 May 2006 12:28:12 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Per Peter Clinch: >So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot? You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens. Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb and all his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just riding around. -- PeteCresswell                         Date: 14 May 2006 18:28:57 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience > head-first. Mine are typically far more controlled than when I'm walking, and sideways rather than over the bars. Last time I went over the bars... I hit my head! Was I wearing a hlemt? Yes? Was I glad about that? No, because I landed on my chin and it made no difference at all :-( > Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just > riding around. As I usually do wear mine for technical MTB work. Most helmet sceptic data comes specifically from road based incidents, so anybody trying to draw hard conclusions about MTB through a rock garden is kidding themselves. Please note I'm not trying to do any such thing. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                         Date: 14 May 2006 18:50:21 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > writes: > Per Peter Clinch: >>So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot? > > You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens. > > Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience > head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a > windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb > and all Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would not have believed it. > his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just > riding around. Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at least some protection. > -- > PeteCresswell --                           Date: 15 May 2006 14:12:38 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at >least some protection. No more ludicrous than it is to suggest that increasing the lever arm won't exacerbate torsional impacts. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > flcl? Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.                           Date: 14 May 2006 18:23:57 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the > dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently > "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would > not have believed it. Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting me. What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for typical cyclists on roads. Shit happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other than on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment going on. > Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at > least some protection. Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB work. But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built to, don't take my word for it), and have a very low chance of saving anyone a serious injury. If it were otherwise increased wearing would have dented the serious injury figures for cyclists. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                             Date: 14 May 2006 19:37:27 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the >> dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently >> "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would >> not have believed it. > > Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting > me. What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you > suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for > typical cyclists on roads. No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing mirror, drainage slots and other such things. You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being aware enough to avoid them : a pathetic attempt to suggest that any form of protection for a cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the shopping.... > > Shit happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other than > on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie). > protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment > going on. > >> Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at >> least some protection. > > Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB work. > But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built to, don't > take my word for it), and have a very low chance of saving anyone a > serious injury. If it were otherwise increased wearing would have > dented the serious injury figures for cyclists. Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe even their lives. See "point of contact" post earlier in the day.                               Date: 11 Jun 2006 17:41:19 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <ppoo82pubvb53j7rc6tet49dm0sr7l7c99@4ax.com >, Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de > writes: > On the other hand, as a long term all day, all year utility cyclist, I > reserve the right to be somewhat contemptous about those gimmicks some > people seem to need, in order to handle a tools as simple and > ubiquituous as a bicycle. :-) I rather feel the same way, but before anyone gets their dander up, let me note the "somewhat contemptous"-ness is for the gimmicks, not the people. OTOH, my hat's off to those who experimentally quest for The Thing That Does The Job Well. If salad tongs make a good front derailer for somebody, all power to 'em. Same for QR hose couplings as trailer hitches, fenders made from plastic flamingoes (hi, Zoot) and other imaginative, artistic & elegant solutions. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca                               Date: 03 Jun 2006 22:00:25 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <p0j282pn6jrjmlgn1iuttpk48l6kb6a4ei@4ax.com >, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > writes: >>Cutting slack for people is good. I like to do so, 'cuz I like >>people. And sometimes I need a li'l slack cut for me ;-) > > Ditto. I perceive that all too often, cyclists/riders are their/our own worst enemies. Whudda buncha trite, officious, picayune bickerers (amongst ourselves) we can sometimes be. Oh, well. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca                               Date: 25 May 2006 14:22:39 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: <All snipped > You are a deceptive turd. You snip and twist and make ridiculous cases. Screw you , asshole. Bye.                                 Date: 26 May 2006 08:55:02 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > You are a deceptive turd. You snip and twist and make ridiculous cases. > Screw you , asshole. Bye. I make cases that seem ridiculous but I construct them using /your/ logic: if it is worth wearing protective equipment to mitigate relatively rare minor injuries on a bike, why not in the house or on the sidewalk? Minor injuries are injuries regardless of where they happen.) That they seem to be ridiculous is precisely *why* I abandoned my previous belief in the sense of wearing a helmet for utility cycling (every trip for over a decade), because I relaised I'd been kidding myself with rationalising doublethink. You are engaged in doublethink because you use completely different standards and thought processes to deal with similar risks in different environments. That you can't see you're doing that is your problem. It used to be mine, too, not so much now though. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                   Date: 26 May 2006 11:49:08 From: Jon Meinecke Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote > You are engaged in doublethink because you use completely different > standards and thought processes to deal with similar risks in different > environments. Humans are notoriously poor judges of actual risk. What's more dangerous a plane trip or the car trip to the airport? The idea that biking presents unique significant inherent dangers is a common one in many places. When people find out that I regularly ride on streets and rural roads, they say, "Isn't that dangerous?" "Aren't you afraid you'll be killed?" They say most accidents happen within half a mile of home. Maybe we should all move someplace less dangerous! %^) Jon Meinecke                               Date: 15 May 2006 14:14:26 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? Because, if your position is consistent, why do you not wear a helmet for other activities as dangerous as cycling, like travelling in motor cars? >Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough >material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who >reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe >even their lives. Indeed. So many, in fact, that it is quite obvious that these stories are nonsense. How can one in twenty helmet-wearers have had their lives saved by helmets if only one in every few thousand cyclists can expect to be killed while riding? -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > flcl? Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.                                 Date: 20 May 2006 12:44:00 From: foots Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? I hit a pothole yesterday, lost control and went down. Besides the road rash on my left leg and arm, my neck has a cramp that concerns me a little. I can remember when my head hit the pavement, it hit hard, I thought the helmut was going to shatter into pieces, but that turned out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know it reduced my injuries considerably. On 15 May 2006 14:14:26 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com>: >>Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? > >Because, if your position is consistent, why do you not wear a helmet for >other activities as dangerous as cycling, like travelling in motor cars? > >>Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough >>material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who >>reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe >>even their lives. > >Indeed. So many, in fact, that it is quite obvious that these stories are >nonsense. How can one in twenty helmet-wearers have had their lives saved >by helmets if only one in every few thousand cyclists can expect to be >killed while riding?                                   Date: 12 Jul 2006 12:59:26 From: D2 Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? >I'm not surprised you find it confusing, Sorni. I'll try to help. >Bike helmets are severely limited by the need to be very light, well >ventilated, provide some protection over the entire "scalp" surface, >and be fairly inexpensive (i.e. they can't cost as much as the >vehicle). > >Blah, blah, blah, >etc. >ad nauseam > >Want to learn more? Oh, sorry - of course you don't! ;-) > >But those that do can check out: > >McLean A.J., Fildes B.N., Kloeden C.J., Digges K.H., Anderson R.W.G., >Moore V.M. & Simpson D.A., Prevention of head injuries to car >occupants: an investigation of interior padding options, Federal Office >of Road Safety - Report CR 160, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, >University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research Centre > >- Frank Krygowski For cryin' out loud, it's over a year later and you're still in here beating the same old drum, Frank? You should spend less time pontificating and more time riding (with or without the helmet, who cares?) or get a girlfriend or a pet or something. And I see you still possess your condescending communication skills. How charming.                                   Date: 29 May 2006 14:07:05 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com >: >out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I >know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I >not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know >it reduced my injuries considerably. Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself. -- OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores: 5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace                                     Date: 30 May 2006 03:27:43 From: foots Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is enough evidence for me. If my head was as hard as some that post in this group, then without a helmut it might have come thru a spill like that unscathed. Everyone has to do their own thing, as for me, I'll wear a brain bucket! On 29 May 2006 14:07:05 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com>: >>out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I >>know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I >>not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know >>it reduced my injuries considerably. > >Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have >been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself.                                       Date: 30 May 2006 15:51:57 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > >Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. > > It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are > arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the > other hand deceptive. Which part of "and/or" can't you grasp, poster boy? > Deception and stupidity don't go together so > well. They seem to work for you. > But they are easy insults to sling, right? > Given an easy target (that would be you!), I guess they are.                                       Date: 30 May 2006 18:05:23 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com >: ><damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com>: >>>out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I >>>know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I >>>not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know >>>it reduced my injuries considerably. >>Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have >>been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself. >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >enough evidence for me. So because the rest of your body - which, incidentally, you are not as equipped by evolution to protect as the head - got scrapes and burns, you conclude that your head would have got "maybe a concussion", and you think there's a possibility it saved your life? See, I would conclude that the helmet maybe saved me scrapes. Which is nice, but if you're worried about scrapes, why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? PS: helm_e_t. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Distortion Field! Today is Monday, June.                                         Date: 30 May 2006 19:13:28 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 18:05:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote: >Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com>: >><damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>>Quoting foots <foots@aohell.com>: >>>>out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I >>>>know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I >>>>not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know >>>>it reduced my injuries considerably. >>>Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have >>>been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself. >>Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >>not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >>shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >>time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >>thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >>enough evidence for me. > >So because the rest of your body - which, incidentally, you are not as >equipped by evolution to protect as the head - got scrapes and burns, you >conclude that your head would have got "maybe a concussion", and you think >there's a possibility it saved your life? I'm reminded of an acquaintance who broke his collarbone riding and that made him decide to "always wear a helmet." I asked him how that would help protect his collarbone in the future and he became indignant. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                           Date: 30 May 2006 21:14:31 From: Kevan Smith Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <lakp729l76cnsbodjj7ui367j3oo63vjrn@4ax.com >, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote: > I'm reminded of an acquaintance who broke his collarbone riding and > that made him decide to "always wear a helmet." I asked him how that > would help protect his collarbone in the future and he became > indignant. I was thinking something similar earlier. Since collarbone fractures are by far a more common cycling injury (anecdotally), why hasn't anyone developed some sort of protective gear for it? And, what would it look like? It might be so bulky and hot as to spoil the fun of riding on a warm enough day. Sort of like a lid. -- fneep                                             Date: 31 May 2006 11:11:19 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Kevan Smith wrote: > > I was thinking something similar earlier. Since collarbone fractures are > by far a more common cycling injury (anecdotally), why hasn't anyone > developed some sort of protective gear for it? And, what would it look > like? It might be so bulky and hot as to spoil the fun of riding on a > warm enough day. Sort of like a lid. > A straightjacket? Virtually all collarbone fractures are the result of putting your arms out to stop the fall. A direct fracture is very rare indeed. Impractical for cycling "but if just one collarbone could be saved" -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                               Date: 31 May 2006 09:30:15 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4e58eaF1dd8pbU1@individual.net... > Kevan Smith wrote: > > > > I was thinking something similar earlier. Since collarbone fractures are > > by far a more common cycling injury (anecdotally), why hasn't anyone > > developed some sort of protective gear for it? And, what would it look > > like? It might be so bulky and hot as to spoil the fun of riding on a > > warm enough day. Sort of like a lid. > > > > A straightjacket? Virtually all collarbone fractures are the result of > putting your arms out to stop the fall. A direct fracture is very rare > indeed. > > Impractical for cycling "but if just one collarbone could be saved" > > -- Yup. Think of the Children.                                         Date: 30 May 2006 19:34:57 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Damerell wrote: > See, I would conclude that the helmet maybe saved me scrapes. Which > is nice We can all go home now.                                       Date: 30 May 2006 06:24:01 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com > wrote: >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >enough evidence for me. It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently preventing serious injury and death. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                         Date: 30 May 2006 07:28:19 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > >enough evidence for me. > > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently > preventing serious injury and death. Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear one? GG > > JT > > **************************** > Remove "remove" to reply > Visit http://www.jt10000.com > ****************************                                           Date: 30 May 2006 18:41:02 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: >> >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >> >enough evidence for me. >> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair, etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily worth preventing. I think you could wear soft-padding like skiers and BMX riders do on the road bike -- that'd help prevent scrapes and bruises too. Do you? I can send you some links to places to get them if you don't already. > >> That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently >> preventing serious injury and death. > >Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a >certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our >lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear >one? Because the risk is remote. Wearing a strong helmet in a car will also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear one? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                             Date: 30 May 2006 22:56:15 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message news:4bip729pjosrqtqhs07122sop6k3u0tgrb@4ax.com... > On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > wrote: > > >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > >news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > >> >enough evidence for me. > >> > >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > > >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair, > etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily > worth preventing. I guess my experience with them is different than yours. Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head). Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps and pads and they're good to go. Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-). Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. Even on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem). As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet. As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece of my cycling kit). > > I think you could wear soft-padding like skiers and BMX riders do on > the road bike -- that'd help prevent scrapes and bruises too. Do you? > I can send you some links to places to get them if you don't already. > > > > >> That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently > >> preventing serious injury and death. > > > >Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > >certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > >lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > >one? > > Because the risk is remote. Wearing a strong helmet in a car will > also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear > one? Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air bags). GG > > JT > > **************************** > Remove "remove" to reply > Visit http://www.jt10000.com > ****************************                                               Date: 31 May 2006 15:31:07 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >: >As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I >disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a >risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece >of my cycling kit). How do scrapes and bruises prevent you using your head? Occasionally they can be painful; but a scrape or bruise on a knee can make pedalling considerably more awkward, and legs are certainly mission critical. You still haven't told us why you don't wear BMX knee and elbow pads to prevent scrapes and bruises. >>Because the risk is remote. Wearing a strong helmet in a car will >>also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear >>one? >Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air >bags). Dodge; _with_ those devices, head injury rates amongst drivers are comparable to cyclists. So why no driving helmet? You could wear a much more robust one, too... -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato! Today is Tuesday, June.                                               Date: 31 May 2006 09:28:29 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:rcafg.261$im3.233@fe02.lga... > As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I > disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a > risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece > of my cycling kit). > How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"? The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more dangerous.                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 06:23:10 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:h%ffg.24289$43.12352@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message > news:rcafg.261$im3.233@fe02.lga... > > > As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth > preventing"...I > > disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear > a > > risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical > piece > > of my cycling kit). > > > > How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"? > > The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more > dangerous. > Were that the case, American lawyers would be lining up to sue the manufacturers (they do for every other thing, real or imagined). That they are not leads me (and most others) to conclude that there is no evidence to support your contention. GG                                               Date: 31 May 2006 05:47:54 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: > I still prefer to wear a > risk mitigating device on my head (given > that it's a mission critical piece > of my cycling kit). Sorry to come back to this, but I still have to laugh at the "mission critical" term. It's so serious and macho-sounding. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 06:20:49 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message news:2epq72ta2m88d3dgq95hh2h6bjmt2hm40c@4ax.com... > On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > wrote: > > > > I still prefer to wear a > > risk mitigating device on my head (given > > that it's a mission critical piece > > of my cycling kit). > > Sorry to come back to this, but I still have to laugh at the "mission > critical" term. It's so serious and macho-sounding. That just reflects your own biases in how you read what I wrote. I was making a small joke that my "head" is the mission critical piece of my cycling kit. That you're so wrapped up in AH Zealotry that you failed to detect that is instructive. GG > > JT > > **************************** > Remove "remove" to reply > Visit http://www.jt10000.com > ****************************                                                   Date: 31 May 2006 14:24:58 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > That just reflects your own biases in how you read what I wrote. I was > making a small joke that my "head" is the mission critical piece of my > cycling kit. That you're so wrapped up in AH Zealotry that you failed to > detect that is instructive. It's also a mission critical part of your walking, driving and domestic handyman jobs kit. So do you wear a helmet for those? If not, why not? You're so wrapped up in people being "anti helmet zealots" you fail to realise you're foregoing useful protection yourself most of the time. Your biases come over by making cycling out to be so much more dangerous than numerous other things everyone does without a helmet that can get us just as hurt and just as dead just as easily. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                               Date: 31 May 2006 05:31:18 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >> Wearing a strong helmet in a car will >> also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear >> one? > >Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air >bags). Sounds like you are looking for excuses not to wear a helmet in a car. Unless the car has side-curtain airbags, there is still a risk of hitting your head on the side window if the car is hit from the side (that is why side-curtain airbags were invented). But sadly side-curtain airbags are not yet present in all cars. Including taxies. You really should have a helmet in those cases. Do you use one then? Please don't use seatbelts as an excuse. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                               Date: 31 May 2006 05:26:41 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >news:4bip729pjosrqtqhs07122sop6k3u0tgrb@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> >> wrote: >> >> >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >> >news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >> >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >> >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >> >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >> >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >> >> >enough evidence for me. >> >> >> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >> > >> >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? >> >> The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair, >> etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily >> worth preventing. > >I guess my experience with them is different than yours. > >Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head). You wear yours indoors too when you're walking around? OK, at least that's consistent. >Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps >and pads and they're good to go. That doesn't work for me. I have to wash the thing and let it dry. Do you do the same thing with other clothes -- give them a quick spritz with water and them put it on? And wear the same one every day without cleaning with soap? Frankly I think that's nasty. > >Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-). > >Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. No, sounds like you haven't ridden enough without a helmet on a hot day. >Even >on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very >slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem). I do ride very very slowly sometimes. When I'm riding to work in street clothes in the summer. Your comment about that being a problem is typical of the "roadie" mentality -- the attitude of too many priily athletic riders who (consciously or subconsciously) view helmet wearing as part of their "gang colors." Helmets show they take the sport seriously. There's more to riding than that. > >As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack >of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet. Yes, lack of experience. I mean, I've only ridden my bike across the United States, lived in China for a couple years and used it as priy transportation every day, been a bike messenger in New York City, am a category 2 racing cyclist and 2-time masters state road champion, have been on at least two racing teams where I got top-line helmets for free, and was a long-time bike commuter. Oh yeah, and former board member/officer of two of the oldest cycling clubs in the United States. And used helmets "religiously* for four or five years in the 1980s and still use them a lot (they're required in races and in some place I ride my bike). So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I haven't experienced enough in cycling. And "excuses" for not wearing them? I think it's more appopriate to say there should be "reasons" for wearing them. >As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I >disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a >risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece >of my cycling kit). Mission critical? So you're one of those people who would never ride without a helmet. That says a lot. >Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air >bags). So if the general rule that if there are two risk mitigating devices present then you don't need any more? Or is it just one? That number seems pretty arbitrary. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 06:17:33 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message news:phnq72lbol4nbtkpjnjvrajeqo8i089i99@4ax.com... > On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > wrote: > > >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > >news:4bip729pjosrqtqhs07122sop6k3u0tgrb@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > >> >news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > >> >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > >> >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > >> >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > >> >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > >> >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > >> >> >enough evidence for me. > >> >> > >> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > >> > > >> >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > >> > >> The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair, > >> etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily > >> worth preventing. > > > >I guess my experience with them is different than yours. > > > >Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head). > > You wear yours indoors too when you're walking around? OK, at least > that's consistent. While off the bike, the helmet hangs easily over the bars. Or, if I'm just off for a few minutes then yes, it stays on my head. > > >Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps > >and pads and they're good to go. > > That doesn't work for me. I have to wash the thing and let it dry. > > Do you do the same thing with other clothes -- give them a quick > spritz with water and them put it on? And wear the same one every day > without cleaning with soap? Frankly I think that's nasty. Sounds like a personal hygiene issue...some people sweat heavily and/or have sweat that smells badly. I've never noticed any undue odor from my pads and straps, and rinsing them with water seems to take care of salt buildup on the straps. > > > > >Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-). > > > >Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. > > No, sounds like you haven't ridden enough without a helmet on a hot > day. LOL - I live where it often exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, so I know something about cycling in the heat. > >Even > >on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very > >slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem). > > I do ride very very slowly sometimes. When I'm riding to work in > street clothes in the summer. Your comment about that being a problem > is typical of the "roadie" mentality -- the attitude of too many > priily athletic riders who (consciously or subconsciously) view > helmet wearing as part of their "gang colors." Helmets show they take > the sport seriously. Perhaps that's it then...it's a psychological thing...you're afraid of being seen as part of the "gang" and use your helmet stance to stake your claim as an outsider. > There's more to riding than that. > > > >As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack > >of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet. > > Yes, lack of experience. I mean, I've only ridden my bike across the > United States, lived in China for a couple years and used it as > priy transportation every day, been a bike messenger in New York > City, am a category 2 racing cyclist and 2-time masters state road > champion, have been on at least two racing teams where I got top-line > helmets for free, and was a long-time bike commuter. Oh yeah, and > former board member/officer of two of the oldest cycling clubs in the > United States. And used helmets "religiously* for four or five years > in the 1980s and still use them a lot (they're required in races and > in some place I ride my bike). I was just yanking your chain...your cycling bona fides are clearly well established. > So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I > haven't experienced enough in cycling. > > And "excuses" for not wearing them? I think it's more appopriate to > say there should be "reasons" for wearing them. For most of us, their ability to mitigate risk is enough reason to wear them. > >As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I > >disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a > >risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece > >of my cycling kit). > > Mission critical? So you're one of those people who would never ride > without a helmet. That says a lot. Slow down and re-read what I wrote, because you missed my meaning. It's my "head" that's the mission critical piece of my cycling kit. > >Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air > >bags). > > So if the general rule that if there are two risk mitigating devices > present then you don't need any more? Or is it just one? That number > seems pretty arbitrary. Life's like that sometimes... GG > JT > > **************************** > Remove "remove" to reply > Visit http://www.jt10000.com > ****************************                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 12:00:49 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > > So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I > haven't experienced enough in cycling. > I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                   Date: 30 Jun 2006 15:41:11 From: Taunto Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > >> >> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I >> haven't experienced enough in cycling. >> > > I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who > question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and > those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like > Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? > They fell off their bike without a helmet, and can't remember who the fuck they are.                                                     Date: 30 Jun 2006 20:04:13 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who > question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and > those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like > Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? > Part and parcel of the lack of civil behaviour, lack of appreciation of fact as a foundation of dialectic, and lack of any pretense to stick to the point.                                                     Date: 30 Jun 2006 22:55:44 From: Bill Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Taunto wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >> >>> >>> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I >>> haven't experienced enough in cycling. >>> >> >> I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who >> question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and >> those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like >> Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? >> > > They fell off their bike without a helmet, and can't remember who the > fuck they are. I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear a baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top of my sunglasses into my eyes. If I could find a helmet with a sun visor on the front I might consider wearing one. Mid day sun hurts my eyes, especially the light that comes around the corners of my sunglasses, and has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where I am going. There's a different point of view for you. Bill (real name) Baka                                                       Date: 02 Jul 2006 19:12:18 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:55:44 GMT, Bill <larrys707@sbcglobal.net > wrote: >Taunto wrote: >> Tony Raven wrote: >>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I >>>> haven't experienced enough in cycling. >>>> >>> >>> I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who >>> question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and >>> those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like >>> Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? >>> >> >> They fell off their bike without a helmet, and can't remember who the >> fuck they are. > >I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear a >baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top of >my sunglasses into my eyes. Doesn't that make your neck hurt. At least get a cycling cap with the small bill. >If I could find a helmet with a sun visor on >the front I might consider wearing one. Perhaps 60% of the helmets on the ket come with one. 80% of the rest can have one fitted and almost all can be worn over a billed cycling cap. None of this means I think you need a helmet, just that you don't need any excuse (much less this one). Ron Mid day sun hurts my eyes, >especially the light that comes around the corners of my sunglasses, and >has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where I am going. >There's a different point of view for you. >Bill (real name) Baka                                                       Date: 01 Jul 2006 02:33:09 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Bill wrote: > I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear > a baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top > of my sunglasses into my eyes. If I could find a helmet with a sun > visor on the front I might consider wearing one. Mid day sun hurts my > eyes, especially the light that comes around the corners of my > sunglasses, and has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where > I am going. There's a different point of view for you. > Bill (real name) Baka Bill, there are a gajillion helmets with visors on the front -- plus of course many people wear a "sun visor" (cap or actual visor) under their helmet. The only reason not to on a road bike is that sometimes it's hard on the neck having to lift the head in order to see under the visor. Shouldn't be a problem on your purple girl's Huffy (or whatever you're riding these days)... Sorni                                                         Date: 01 Jul 2006 08:08:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Bill Sornson wrote: > Bill wrote: > >> I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear >> a baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top >> of my sunglasses into my eyes. If I could find a helmet with a sun >> visor on the front I might consider wearing one. Mid day sun hurts my >> eyes, especially the light that comes around the corners of my >> sunglasses, and has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where >> I am going. There's a different point of view for you. >> Bill (real name) Baka > > Bill, there are a gajillion helmets with visors on the front -- plus of > course many people wear a "sun visor" (cap or actual visor) under their > helmet. The only reason not to on a road bike is that sometimes it's hard > on the neck having to lift the head in order to see under the visor. > Shouldn't be a problem on your purple girl's Huffy (or whatever you're > riding these days)... > > Sorni > > Sorni, The Huffy is semi retired and I am riding my Schwinn Super Sport 700 x 25? more these days. Even with my baseball caps the visor gets in the way when I am head down and going for speed, and then a truck comes by and blasts the cap off anyway. I just haven't seen any helmets that meet my personal preference, and a large part of that is keeping my eyes protected from UV rays, which are a lot more damaging than science is letting on. Bill Baka                                                   Date: 31 May 2006 07:41:46 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:00:49 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >> >> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I >> haven't experienced enough in cycling. >> > >I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who >question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and >those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like >Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be? Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                                     Date: 31 May 2006 13:12:50 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > > Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know. > Sorni is kind of close to Bill Sorenson, Ozark Bicycle is nothing like Richard Malesweski. Who Strange Quark is is anyone's guess as he's only been around for a month. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                       Date: 31 May 2006 14:27:51 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >> Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know. >> > > Sorni is kind of close to Bill Sorenson, Ozark Bicycle is nothing like > Richard Malesweski. Who Strange Quark is is anyone's guess as he's > only been around for a month. Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything. The old "we've been posting for longer than you so we must be right" is really one of the weakest defences/attacks in the history of usenet. Imagine if Mike Tyson concurred when he climbed into the ring with Michael Spinks? Oh, he's been boxing longer so he must be right/better ... Incidentally, my email address is real.                                                         Date: 31 May 2006 13:39:51 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who > I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything. Who you are really doesn't bother me, it's just an observation that one side of this debate seems more prone to hiding their identities than the other. Make of that what you will. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                       Date: 31 May 2006 08:26:55 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 31 May 2006 13:12:50 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >> >> Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know. >> > >Sorni is kind of close to Bill Sorenson, Oops, I thought his name was Bill Sorni. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                           Date: 30 May 2006 18:36:56 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >: >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >>It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Distortion Field! Today is Monday, June.                                             Date: 30 May 2006 19:52:13 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > writes: > Quoting GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>: >>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >>>It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >>They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes. That would be a different thread : it is helmets being discussed here - for cycling.                                               Date: 31 May 2006 15:28:05 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: >>Quoting GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com>: >>>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >>>>It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >>>They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? >>Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes. >That would be a different thread : it is helmets being discussed here - >for cycling. Obvious evasion. Why not, when discussing helmets, compare them to other protective gear? -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato! Today is Tuesday, June.                                           Date: 30 May 2006 18:31:36 From: Alan Braggins Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <sCYeg.21$hU.15@fe02.lga >, GaryG wrote: > > Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear one? Given that you clearly haven't been paying attention, why join in now? If it wasn't for the evidence that they don't mitigate risk, this thread would be very different.                                           Date: 30 May 2006 13:39:43 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:sCYeg.21$hU.15@fe02.lga... > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > > > > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > > >enough evidence for me. > > > > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > Gloves also mitigate against scrapes and such, as do kneepads, elbow guards, and so on; but you don't see them required by law. At least not yet. Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping compulsion. Beware.                                             Date: 30 May 2006 22:44:08 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:KA_eg.24178$43.6034@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message > news:sCYeg.21$hU.15@fe02.lga... > > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > > news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > > > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > > > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > > > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > > > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > > > >enough evidence for me. > > > > > > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > > > Gloves also mitigate against scrapes and such, as do kneepads, elbow guards, > and so on; but you don't see them required by law. Who here is advocating for mandatory helmet wearing? You AHZ's always seem to be attempting to shift the debate. This thread was discussing the relative risks/benefits of helmet wearing...nobody has said anything about mandatory helmet laws. > > At least not yet. > > Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping > compulsion. Beware. That sounds like paranoia to me. GG                                               Date: 31 May 2006 09:21:29 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:31afg.251$im3.176@fe02.lga... > You AHZ's always seem to be attempting to shift the debate. This thread was > discussing the relative risks/benefits of helmet wearing...nobody has said > anything about mandatory helmet laws. MHLs are linked by definition to any discussion of the putative merits of cycle helmets. > > > > > At least not yet. > > > > Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping > > compulsion. Beware. > > That sounds like paranoia to me. > No, it's the stated platform of politicians.                                               Date: 31 May 2006 11:37:37 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <31afg.251$im3.176@fe02.lga >, GaryG (sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com) wrote: > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:KA_eg.24178$43.6034@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >> Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping >> compulsion. Beware. > > That sounds like paranoia to me. Members of the British government are on record as stating that when the wearing of tleHats reaches a certain percentage of the cycling population, they WILL introduce an MHL. This is because they are a bunch of control freaks who, were they able, would dissolve The People and vote themselves another which /didn't/ object to the steady erosion of its collective civil liberties. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 09:26:35 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message news:MPG.1ee77833514670d4989bf5@news.individual.net... > In article <31afg.251$im3.176@fe02.lga>, GaryG > (sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com) wrote: > > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > news:KA_eg.24178$43.6034@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > >> Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping > >> compulsion. Beware. > > > > That sounds like paranoia to me. > > Members of the British government are on record as stating that when the > wearing of tleHats reaches a certain percentage of the cycling > population, they WILL introduce an MHL. This is because they are a > bunch of control freaks who, were they able, would dissolve The People > and vote themselves another which /didn't/ object to the steady erosion > of its collective civil liberties. > There is _absolutely_ no truth to the rumour that the Bush adminstration has plans, while in its third term, to require rfid chips to be embeded in cycle helmets for the purposes of ensuring that the wearers ride only on designated paths during daylight hours. While no national US helmet law is contemplated at this time, states which do not pass such a law will not receive any further federal funding for road construction due to the additional damage to the roadbed from bicycle traffic.                                           Date: 30 May 2006 16:00:43 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking, running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another. And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by the pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far between. If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch cycling population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they cycle more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head injury rates). > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > one? So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your head against the door pillar where the seatbelt mounts with and without a helmet. Which hurts more? Without the helmet, I guess, so you wear it in the car because it will mitigate risk? You've even got air conditioning and no work to do, so it makes even less sense not to than on a bike. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                             Date: 30 May 2006 17:23:31 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4e350sF1d6ra5U1@individual.net... > GaryG wrote: > > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > > news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > > >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking, > running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which > have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another. > > And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by the > pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far between. "faff"? - I'm not familiar with that term and dictionary.com was no help. If you're implying that wearing a helmet is a painful experience for you, perhaps you should try a different model...most modern helmets are hardly noticeable once properly adjusted. As for the "pain of not wearing it"...that would seem to be making my point, so I assume you've misspoken. > > If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing > for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch cycling > population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they cycle > more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head injury > rates). > > > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > > one? > > So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial arts, American football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational folks. GG > You > wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your head > against the door pillar where the seatbelt mounts with and without a > helmet. Which hurts more? Without the helmet, I guess, so you wear it > in the car because it will mitigate risk? You've even got air > conditioning and no work to do, so it makes even less sense not to than > on a bike. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                               Date: 31 May 2006 15:26:55 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com >: >"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >>So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. >Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk >of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial arts, American >football and baseball, etc.). These activities are much more dangerous than cycling - motorcycling, for example, is more than ten times as dangerous. Why not discuss similarly dangerous activities such as driving? Do you wear a helmet then? >For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is >pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their >ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational >folks. So you are suggesting the entire population of the Netherlands is irrational? -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato! Today is Tuesday, June.                                               Date: 31 May 2006 09:17:43 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:NZ9fg.250$im3.69@fe02.lga... > > > Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk > of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial arts, American > football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is > pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their > ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational > folks. > So why do you support their use and compulsion of their use in an activity which has a vanishingly small risk of head injury, and where their ability to prevent any such head injury is essentially zero?                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 12:30:22 From: Mark Thompson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? > and where their ability to prevent any such head injury is essentially > zero? Eh?                                                 Date: 31 May 2006 08:39:00 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:NZ9fg.250$im3.69@fe02.lga... > > > Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk > of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial arts, American > football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is > pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their > ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most > rational > folks. I still don't understand why you don't use helmets in cars that lack airbags. The cost-benefit ratio is pretty clear. Their use involves little discomfort and little cost relative to the cost of a car (or to the cost of a head injury!). Or perhaps you do. Hope you have a nice bike mission, I mean bike ride, today and can complete the mission. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                                               Date: 31 May 2006 11:41:06 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > "faff"? - I'm not familiar with that term and dictionary.com was no help. > If you're implying that wearing a helmet is a painful experience for you, > perhaps you should try a different model...most modern helmets are hardly > noticeable once properly adjusted. As for the "pain of not wearing > it"...that would seem to be making my point, so I assume you've misspoken. > Faff v. intr, dial. and colloq. To fuss, to dither. Often with about. Also as n., fuss, ‘flap’. http://oed.com -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                             Date: 30 May 2006 17:18:20 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > GaryG wrote: >> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >> news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > >>> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking, > running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which > have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another. Do you have deabilitating disease? > > And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by > the pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far > between. I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in the *majority* of accident.s > > If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing > for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch > cycling population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they > cycle more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head > injury rates). > >> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a >> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our >> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear >> one? > > So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You > wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.                                               Date: 30 May 2006 13:50:55 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87fyiry20z.fsf@news.europe.ch... > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > > > > So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You > > wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your > > This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable. So turn it around then: "Yes, helmets won't prevent any kind of serious head injury, but in the vanishingly small chance that you fall off you bike and get only a small scrape, this foam hat will prevent you needing a sticking-plaster. Nevermind that the chance that you will suffer a serious injury is actually greater because you are wearing one, those plasters are expensive! And think of the children!"                                               Date: 30 May 2006 16:34:27 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Do you have deabilitating disease? Not that I'm aware of, aside from age gradually wearing me down over time. > I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in > the *majority* of accident.s Nor do I, but seatbelts have a proven track record of helping in A Random Accident where cycle helmets don't. Furthermore, it is the case that outside of individual all -other-things-equal accidents that seatbelts alter driver behaviour and make accidents more likely. The priy effect of compulsory seatbelt legislation is that drivers keep getting hurt just as much but cyclist and pedestrian injuries rise. > This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable. So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic". Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                 Date: 30 May 2006 17:37:59 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Do you have deabilitating disease? > > Not that I'm aware of, aside from age gradually wearing me down over time. > >> I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in >> the *majority* of accident.s > > Nor do I, but seatbelts have a proven track record of helping in A > Random Accident where cycle helmets don't. Furthermore, it is the > case that outside of individual all -other-things-equal accidents that > seatbelts alter driver behaviour and make accidents more likely. The > priy effect of compulsory seatbelt legislation is that drivers keep > getting hurt just as much but cyclist and pedestrian injuries rise. > >> This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable. > > So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, > rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce > many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries > than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but > not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just > answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic". Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet? Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them?                                                   Date: 31 May 2006 08:52:00 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and > jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. But why are kids on foot who fall due to "unforseen impetus" regarded differently to cyclists who fall with "unforseen impetus"? They're all hitting the ground and potentially hurting their heads, what they were doing in the run up is immaterial. > And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head > hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet? Depends on the accident, as has been said. I note that "the question" above makes *no* distinction between whether the accident happened when running, walking, or cycling. Clearly if there is a single answer to it, it should apply to them all. > Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them? I haven't studied the field enough to be able to give a reasonable answer. "Common sense" says yes, but common sense isn't good enough. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                     Date: 31 May 2006 10:13:14 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and >> jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. > > But why are kids on foot who fall due to "unforseen impetus" regarded > differently to cyclists who fall with "unforseen impetus"? They're > all hitting the ground and potentially hurting their heads, what they > were doing in the run up is immaterial. So what? Maybe you should discuss this in who.will.care.for.the.children newsgroup? It doesnt seem relevant here. > >> And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head >> hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet? > > Depends on the accident, as has been said. > Yesss .... > I note that "the question" above makes *no* distinction between > whether the accident happened when running, walking, or cycling. > Clearly if there is a single answer to it, it should apply to them > all. Clearly you are emplying your usual baffle answers- > >> Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them? > > I haven't studied the field enough to be able to give a reasonable > answer. "Common sense" says yes, but common sense isn't good enough. Statistics can prove anything. I doubt very much if I can find anyone who has banged their head in 30 years of walking down the street : yet can find many who have bashed their heads to various degrees when taking tumbles off bikes. Now : better with helmet on or better with it off? You know the question by now.                                                       Date: 31 May 2006 09:15:00 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87odxepq79.fsf@news.europe.ch... > > Statistics can prove anything. I doubt very much if I can find anyone > who has banged their head in 30 years of walking down the street : yet > can find many who have bashed their heads to various degrees when taking > tumbles off bikes. > On the contrary, anecdote can prove anything. As you so conveniently supply, above. The reason why we use statistics is that, properly done (controls, matching, large sample sizes, confidence intervals, etcetera), they are far superior to anecdote. They are also far superior to the plural of anecdote, which some people here are erroneously calling "common sense".                                                         Date: 31 May 2006 13:25:18 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > > On the contrary, anecdote can prove anything Is that an anecdote or a statistic? ;-) -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                   Date: 30 May 2006 18:38:44 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, >>rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce >>many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries >>than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but >>not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? >Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and >jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I suggest. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Distortion Field! Today is Monday, June.                                                     Date: 30 May 2006 19:51:32 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > writes: > Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com>: >>Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>>So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, >>>rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce >>>many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries >>>than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but >>>not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? >>Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and >>jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. > > Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I > suggest. What point? I dont wish to discuss wearing a helmet for anything other than cycling. What is so hard for you to understsnd? Why is this slippery goal post moving the only argument you seem to have? "Why dont people wear a helmet to pop concerts" is not linked to whether a helmet would provide some protection in the event of an unforseen tumble *from a bike* resulting in the head striking a solid object.                                                       Date: 31 May 2006 15:24:58 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: >>Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com>: >>>Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and >>>jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. >>Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I >>suggest. >What point? I dont wish to discuss wearing a helmet for anything other >than cycling. Why not? Are you somehow immune to head injuries at other times? That must be very convenient. "If you wear a helmet while cycling, why don't you wear one while doing other things equally prone to head injuries?" is a very obvious question that demands an answer. Saying you only want to discuss cycling is pure evasion. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato! Today is Tuesday, June.                                                       Date: 30 May 2006 19:23:18 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > >> Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com>: >>> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>>> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent >>>> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping >>>> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of >>>> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for >>>> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear >>>> protective headgear? >>> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids >>> running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by >>> unforseen impetus. >> >> Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of >> subtlety, I suggest. > > What point? I dont wish to discuss wearing a helmet for anything other > than cycling. What is so hard for you to understsnd? > > Why is this slippery goal post moving the only argument you seem to > have? > > "Why dont people wear a helmet to pop concerts" is not linked to > whether a helmet would provide some protection in the event of an > unforseen tumble *from a bike* resulting in the head striking a > solid object. It's always funny to see weasels call others weasels in their typically weaselly fashion. You answer to Damnitall was perfect.                                                   Date: 30 May 2006 13:52:46 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87r72bttew.fsf@news.europe.ch... >> > > > So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, > > rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce > > many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries > > than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but > > not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just > > answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic". > > Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and > jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus. > And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do more good? Think of the Children!                                                     Date: 30 May 2006 19:21:29 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:87r72bttew.fsf@news.europe.ch... >>>> >>> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent >>> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping >>> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of >>> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for >>> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective >>> headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or >>> "pathetic". >> >> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running >> and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen >> impetus. >> > > And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your > service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts > where they would do more good? > > Think of the Children! Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting? Classic stuff...                                                       Date: 30 May 2006 19:03:04 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:ZW0fg.9170$9W5.4087@tornado.socal.rr.com... > jtaylor wrote: > > "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:87r72bttew.fsf@news.europe.ch... > >>>> > >>> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent > >>> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping > >>> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of > >>> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for > >>> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective > >>> headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or > >>> "pathetic". > >> > >> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running > >> and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen > >> impetus. > >> > > > > And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your > > service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts > > where they would do more good? > > > > Think of the Children! > > Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting? > Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up. I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using them in future.                                                         Date: 30 May 2006 22:32:41 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message > news:ZW0fg.9170$9W5.4087@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> jtaylor wrote: >>> "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:87r72bttew.fsf@news.europe.ch... >>>>>> >>>>> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent >>>>> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping >>>>> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of >>>>> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for >>>>> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear >>>>> protective headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as >>>>> "childish" or "pathetic". >>>> >>>> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids >>>> running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by >>>> unforseen impetus. >>>> >>> >>> And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your >>> service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts >>> where they would do more good? >>> >>> Think of the Children! >> >> Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and >> insulting? >> > > Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up. > > I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults > are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using > them in future. I think you are a hypocrite for jumping into an exchange in which you previously had not participated just to throw out a gratuitous insult, when just today you've repeatedly chastised others for {wait for it} posting insults in response to insults. In fact, change "I think" to I /know/...                                                           Date: 30 May 2006 20:36:28 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:dK3fg.81$Ah.3@tornado.socal.rr.com... > >>> > >>> And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your > >>> service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts > >>> where they would do more good? > >>> > >>> Think of the Children! > >> > >> Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and > >> insulting? > >> > > > > Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up. > > > > I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults > > are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using > > them in future. > > I think you are a hypocrite for jumping into an exchange in which you > previously had not participated just to throw out a gratuitous insult, when > just today you've repeatedly chastised others for {wait for it} posting > insults in response to insults. > Where is the insult?                                                           Date: 30 May 2006 23:33:56 From: Richard Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > In fact, change "I think" to I /know/... You didn't need to correct yourself; you've made it abundantly clear that you never think. :-) R.                                               Date: 30 May 2006 16:28:31 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable. Some 1 million Americans a year are injured in trips, slips and falls and 17,000 of them die as a result. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                           Date: 30 May 2006 15:35:02 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > Because the evidence is they make more serious injuries worse. A cloth cycling cap will help with scrapes and such without the other problem. > > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > one? > Most people assume that. The evidence is that they don't and actually seem to worsen the situation. In that case why would you wear one? -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                             Date: 30 May 2006 07:43:20 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4e33gnF1cql9oU1@individual.net... > GaryG wrote: > > > >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > > > Because the evidence is they make more serious injuries worse. A cloth > cycling cap will help with scrapes and such without the other problem. Hmmm...perhaps we could improve upon this with kevlar cycling caps? > > > > > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > > one? > > > > Most people assume that. The evidence is that they don't and actually > seem to worsen the situation. In that case why would you wear one? Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk, and even the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches, bruises, and abrasions. That's good enough for me. GG > > > -- > Tony > > "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using > his intelligence; he is just using his memory." > - Leonardo da Vinci                                               Date: 30 May 2006 15:56:40 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk, and even > the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches, bruises, and > abrasions. That's good enough for me. > Many studies show convincing evidence. e.g Rodgers, in a study of 8 million cyclists in the US found "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use" Hewson in a study of UK police and hospital data found "The conclusion cannot be avoided that there is no evidence from the benchk dataset in the UK that helmets have had a ked safety benefit at the population level for road using pedal cyclists" Mok et al found that injured child cyclists wearing helmets reported riding faster and suffered greater damage to their bikes than the non-helmet wearing ones etc. What we absolutely do know though is enforced helmet wearing leads to a substantial reduction in cycling, particularly amongst children. That is bad for cycling and bad for the health of children (where we have an increasing epidemic of obesity and lack of exercise). -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                 Date: 30 May 2006 15:33:20 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > GaryG wrote: >> >> Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk, >> and even the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches, >> bruises, and abrasions. That's good enough for me. > Many studies show convincing evidence. Too bad you didn't cite any! <eg > > e.g > > Rodgers, in a study of 8 million cyclists in the US found "that the > bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly > correlated with increased helmet use" Says absolutely nothing about an /individual's/ risk of being injured being increased due to wearing a helmet. Also doesn't take into account the types of cyclists who /keep/ riding after an MHL is passed, as opposed to the types likely to quit or greatly reduce their riding. Definitely affects the stats. (See below for full theory.) > Hewson in a study of UK police and hospital data found "The conclusion > cannot be avoided that there is no evidence from the benchk dataset > in the UK that helmets have had a ked safety benefit at the > population level for road using pedal cyclists" And this shows /increased risk of injury/ how, exactly? (Nice double negative, BTW: "conclusion cannot be avoided that there is no...".) > Mok et al found that injured child cyclists wearing helmets reported > riding faster and suffered greater damage to their bikes than the > non-helmet wearing ones IOW, the helmet does NOT increase injury rates or severity. CHILD BEHAVIOR is a completely separate issue -- one which could be well addressed through education, enforcing rules, etc. > What we absolutely do know though is enforced helmet wearing leads to > a substantial reduction in cycling, particularly amongst children. That is > bad for cycling and bad for the health of children (where we > have an increasing epidemic of obesity and lack of exercise). While this may very well be true and should be of concern and addressed, it also throws off those vaunted overall population studies (along with casual cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc. etc.) which have no bearing on either "serious" road cycling or mountain biking. BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of "serious" injuries most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after MHLs are passed. So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or significantly reduce riding due to those horribly oppressive and restrictive laws, it should be no surprise that the statistics /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up when MHLs are imposed. The number and types of riders likely to get injured remain close to the same, while the overall number of bike riders is decreased -- often quite dramatically (according to you guys). But I'm sure this is taken into account. Right?                                                   Date: 30 May 2006 16:46:27 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > > While this may very well be true and should be of concern and addressed, it > also throws off those vaunted overall population studies (along with casual > cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc. etc.) which have no bearing on either > "serious" road cycling or mountain biking. > > BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of "serious" injuries > most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after MHLs are passed. > So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or significantly reduce riding > due to those horribly oppressive and restrictive laws, it should be no > surprise that the statistics /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up > when MHLs are imposed. The number and types of riders likely to get injured > remain close to the same, while the overall number of bike riders is > decreased -- often quite dramatically (according to you guys). > So let's assume your hypothesis is correct. The number of riders drops which means those people who stopped are no longer suffering cycling head injuries. Those "serious" cyclists who continue and make up the bulk of "serious" injuries now all wear helmets when cycling so should, if helmets work, have a big (85%?) reduction in their head injuries. So you would expect a big decrease in the number of head injuries recorded. But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                     Date: 30 May 2006 16:07:15 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: (why no reply to the other stuff?) > Sorni wrote: >> While this may very well be true and should be of concern and >> addressed, it also throws off those vaunted overall population >> studies (along with casual cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc. >> etc.) which have no bearing on either "serious" road cycling or >> mountain biking. BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of >> "serious" >> injuries most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after >> MHLs are passed. So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or >> significantly reduce riding due to those horribly oppressive and >> restrictive laws, it should be no surprise that the statistics >> /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up when MHLs are imposed. The >> number and types of riders likely to get injured remain close to >> the same, while the overall number of bike riders is decreased -- >> often quite dramatically (according to you guys). > > So let's assume your hypothesis is correct. The number of riders > drops which means those people who stopped are no longer suffering > cycling head injuries. Those "serious" cyclists who continue and > make up the bulk of "serious" injuries now all wear helmets when > cycling so should, if helmets work, have a big (85%?) reduction in > their head injuries. So you would expect a big decrease in the > number of head injuries recorded. First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes that 85% thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet usually can not prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head injury, so those numbers won't decrease very much if at all. > But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head > injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which > means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle. I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying values given. And now I'm late to go take a stress test! (I think I'll pass, as I'm stressed!) BS                                                       Date: 30 May 2006 13:47:03 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:T4_eg.9120$9W5.6414@tornado.socal.rr.com... > Secondly, no one takes that 85% thing seriously. Um, yes they do. The helmet lobby routinely quotes it; members of parliament quote it, and police "public-service" announcements quote it. These people are serious about helmet compulsion, and because they have one study that is essentially a set of anecdotes with no controls that says that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, we have MHLs. Oh wait, you are the fellow who would _rather_ use anecdote than statistics - you "don't need data to make simple decisions".                                                       Date: 30 May 2006 17:19:05 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > > First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes that 85% > thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet usually can not > prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head injury, so those numbers > won't decrease very much if at all. I know you said injury rates but that has the complication of changes with the number of people cycling obscuring the underlying number of injuries. If you take absolute numbers of injuries it is difficult to see how your hypothesis could not lead to a reduction in the absolute number unless helmets didn't work. So we now have that you don't believe helmets prevent fatal or near fatal injuries and that the 85% reduction figure for the rest cannot be taken seriously. So which parts of your starting position are we left with and what reduction figure would you take seriously? > >> But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head >> injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which >> means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle. > > I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying values > given. > And I've given you the identifying values ^, but if you are incapable of reading a simple graph I can see why you would avoid reading research papers. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                         Date: 30 May 2006 19:18:23 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Sorni wrote: >> >> First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes >> that 85% thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet >> usually can not prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head >> injury, so those numbers won't decrease very much if at all. > > I know you said injury rates but that has the complication of changes > with the number of people cycling obscuring the underlying number of > injuries. If you take absolute numbers of injuries it is difficult to > see how your hypothesis could not lead to a reduction in the absolute > number unless helmets didn't work. The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious" riders). > So we now have that you don't believe helmets prevent fatal or near > fatal injuries and that the 85% reduction figure for the rest cannot > be taken seriously. So which parts of your starting position are we > left with and what reduction figure would you take seriously? Lovely straw/men/. (Hint: MY starting position was never 85%, nor was it that helmets can prevent fatalities -- at least not typically.) My starting position (in these threads) is exactly the same as my current position: namely, that wearing a helmet while road cycling and mountain biking is a very st thing to do. It can lessen both the likelihood and severity of injury in the event of the types of falls that can happen to even the most careful and experienced cyclist. >>> But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of >>> head injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) >>> Which means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle. >> >> I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying >> values given. >> > > And I've given you the identifying values ^, but if you are incapable > of reading a simple graph I can see why you would avoid reading > research papers. I haven't seen your reply to that yet. (There ARE like 160 new posts just in RBT, you know.) I can read simple graphs just fine, thanks. The ones you posted were just plain comical as shown; perhaps your filling in all the mystery pieces will help me take them seriously. (PERHAPS.)                                                           Date: 30 May 2006 20:52:46 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:3U0fg.7464$G95.41@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > My starting position (in these threads) is exactly the same as my current > position: namely, that wearing a helmet while road cycling and mountain > biking is a very st thing to do. It can lessen both the likelihood and > severity of injury in the event of the types of falls that can happen to > even the most careful and experienced cyclist. > Why would you not claim then, that wearing a helmet while walking is even ster thing to do - the chance of injury is greater? Do you wear a helmet while walking? If not, why not?                                                           Date: 30 May 2006 21:34:41 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > > The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious" > riders). > Even if the ones left cycling were the only ones to get hurt (i.e. the people who stopped cycling did not get hurt at all and so their stopping created no reduction in head injuries at all) then the serious cyclists still increased their wearing of helmets with no change to their head injuries at all. No, sorry Bill, your hypothesis still fails. However the evidence is that the "serious" cyclists have the lowest risk of injury. The data from five studies* is that the accidents per million miles (average annual miles) is 550 (580) for elementary school student, 510 (600) for college students, 340 (814) for commuters, 113 (2,400) for League of American Bicyclists and 66 (2000) for Cyclists' Touring Club members. So the serious cyclists have the lowest accident rate, the inverse of your proposition * Chlapecka et al 1975; Schupack and Driessen 1976; Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker 1998; Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1998 -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                                             Date: 30 May 2006 20:53:48 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4e3oj3F1c9cv7U1@individual.net... > Sorni wrote: > > > > The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious" > > riders). > > > > However the evidence is that the "serious" cyclists have the lowest risk > of injury. The data from five studies* is that the accidents per > million miles (average annual miles) is 550 (580) for elementary school > student, 510 (600) for college students, 340 (814) for commuters, 113 > (2,400) for League of American Bicyclists and 66 (2000) for Cyclists' > Touring Club members. So the serious cyclists have the lowest accident > rate, the inverse of your proposition > > * Chlapecka et al 1975; Schupack and Driessen 1976; Aultman-Hall and > Kaltenecker 1998; Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1998 > > -- Oooops. Classic helmet zealot error.                                                               Date: 31 May 2006 11:08:00 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message > news:4e3oj3F1c9cv7U1@individual.net... >> Sorni wrote: >>> The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious" >>> riders). >>> > > >> However the evidence is that the "serious" cyclists have the lowest risk >> of injury. The data from five studies* is that the accidents per >> million miles (average annual miles) is 550 (580) for elementary school >> student, 510 (600) for college students, 340 (814) for commuters, 113 >> (2,400) for League of American Bicyclists and 66 (2000) for Cyclists' >> Touring Club members. So the serious cyclists have the lowest accident >> rate, the inverse of your proposition >> >> * Chlapecka et al 1975; Schupack and Driessen 1976; Aultman-Hall and >> Kaltenecker 1998; Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1998 >> >> -- > > > Oooops. > > Classic helmet zealot error. > > His hypothesis didn't work anyway but I feel a campaign for mandatory CTC membership coming on - after all a CTC membership card clearly prevents 90% of cycling accidents. ;-) -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci                                   Date: 22 May 2006 09:15:07 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? foots wrote: > I hit a pothole yesterday, lost control and went down. Besides the > road rash on my left leg and arm, my neck has a cramp that concerns me > a little. I can remember when my head hit the pavement, it hit hard, I > thought the helmut was going to shatter into pieces, but that turned > out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I > know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I > not been wearing my helmut. But you don't: your helmeted head is heavier and bigger than your unhelmeted head, so it's quite possible that contributed to you taking the head hit. > Not sure if it saved my life, but I know > it reduced my injuries considerably. It /may/ have saved you a worse injury, but you do not *know* that. Furthermore, the extra size of the helmet may have given a lever that contributed to that worrying neck cramp. The number of anecdotes of "helmet saved me" increases at a far greater rate than unhelmeted riders collect serious head injuries. Thus it is clear they are not reliable guides. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 for more. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                     Date: 22 May 2006 18:01:56 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4dda8bF19gtmnU1@individual.net... > foots wrote: > > I hit a pothole yesterday, lost control and went down. Besides the > > road rash on my left leg and arm, my neck has a cramp that concerns me > > a little. I can remember when my head hit the pavement, it hit hard, I > > thought the helmut was going to shatter into pieces, but that turned > > out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I > > know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I > > not been wearing my helmut. > > But you don't: your helmeted head is heavier and bigger than your > unhelmeted head, so it's quite possible that contributed to you taking > the head hit. By that "rationale", a cotton cycling cap would confer a greater degree of protection than a proper cycling helmet. Not sure if that's the argument you're trying to make, but that's the take-home message. FWIW, the average human head weighs between 4.5 and 5 kg. An average bicycle helmet (e.g., Gyro Pneumo) weighs 0.26 kg, so the average increase in head weight is around 5%. You've implied in quite a few posts that an unhelmeted cyclist can keep their head from impacting the ground in a fall by use of their neck muscles, and you've also stated that a helmeted cyclist's neck muscles would not be able to overcome the additional momentum of the helmet. Given the small additional mass of a modern helmet, I strongly suspect your argument is specious (a nice way of saying you're pulling it out of your ass). > > > Not sure if it saved my life, but I know > > it reduced my injuries considerably. > > It /may/ have saved you a worse injury, but you do not *know* that. > Furthermore, the extra size of the helmet may have given a lever that > contributed to that worrying neck cramp. Yet again the clear message is that "helmets are dangerous". Do you have any studies to back up your rather bizarre assertions that helmets increase the dangers of head impact/neck injuries? Or, is this merely yet more of your anti-helmet crusade? GG > The number of anecdotes of "helmet saved me" increases at a far greater > rate than unhelmeted riders collect serious head injuries. Thus it is > clear they are not reliable guides. > > See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 for more. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                       Date: 23 May 2006 09:30:57 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > By that "rationale", a cotton cycling cap would confer a greater degree of > protection than a proper cycling helmet. Not sure if that's the argument > you're trying to make, but that's the take-home message. It depends on the accident. If the accident is one where a capped head comes within an inch of an obstacle but a helmeted head hits it, then that would indeed be the case. Another possibility is that a capped head ends up concussed and grazed but a helmeted head is twisted by the extra leverage allowed by the helmet and has its neck broken. But you don't know if that would be the case up front, of course... The take-home message is you cannot say for sure that after an accident you were *surely* better off with a helmet, simply on the grounds that it hit something. You might be, but you won't /definetly/ be. > FWIW, the average human head weighs between 4.5 and 5 kg. An average > bicycle helmet (e.g., Gyro Pneumo) weighs 0.26 kg, so the average increase > in head weight is around 5%. > > You've implied in quite a few posts that an unhelmeted cyclist can keep > their head from impacting the ground in a fall by use of their neck muscles, > and you've also stated that a helmeted cyclist's neck muscles would not be > able to overcome the additional momentum of the helmet. Given the small > additional mass of a modern helmet, I strongly suspect your argument is > specious (a nice way of saying you're pulling it out of your ass). It's not just weight, it's size too. You'd have an easier job keeping an unhelmeted head off the deck than a zero weight helmet because you don't have to keep it up the extra distance required by the additional size of the helmet. The head is kept up by reflex action, and the reflexes are working on a self-knowledge of where the head is and extends to. Unless you make a habit of sliding around tarmac in a cycle helmet then the reflex to keep the head up is using information on the head, not the helmeted head. This is quite easy to see safely in practice: wear a helmet in a cave and you'll bang your head far more often than if you don't (though in this case since you'll almost certainly be banging it anyway, and are never above walking pace, it's definitely worth wearing!). > Yet again the clear message is that "helmets are dangerous". No, it is that they are *potentially* dangerous and are *not* a clear win. > Do you have any studies to back up your rather bizarre assertions that > helmets increase the dangers of head impact/neck injuries? Or, is this > merely yet more of your anti-helmet crusade? Go to www.cyclehelmets.org and get reading. For example, you can find one that suggests you're 7 times more likely to hit your head in a crash with a helmet than without in Wasserman RC, Waller JA, Monty MJ, Emery AB, Robinson DR. Bicyclists, helmets and head injuries: a rider-based study of helmet use and effectiveness. 1988. American Journal of Public Health: 1988 Sep;78(9):1220-1 Not a study, but an expert opinion you'll find there is, "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." It isn't an anti-helmet crusade, it's a get real about the realities of what you can really expect crusade. If I was "anti helmet" I wouldn't own and occasionally wear one. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                         Date: 23 May 2006 07:01:26 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4dfvi2F1a3o6kU1@individual.net... > GaryG wrote: > > > By that "rationale", a cotton cycling cap would confer a greater degree of > > protection than a proper cycling helmet. Not sure if that's the argument > > you're trying to make, but that's the take-home message. > > It depends on the accident. If the accident is one where a capped head > comes within an inch of an obstacle but a helmeted head hits it, then > that would indeed be the case. Another possibility is that a capped > head ends up concussed and grazed but a helmeted head is twisted by the > extra leverage allowed by the helmet and has its neck broken. But you > don't know if that would be the case up front, of course... > > The take-home message is you cannot say for sure that after an accident > you were *surely* better off with a helmet, simply on the grounds that > it hit something. You might be, but you won't /definetly/ be. > > > FWIW, the average human head weighs between 4.5 and 5 kg. An average > > bicycle helmet (e.g., Gyro Pneumo) weighs 0.26 kg, so the average increase > > in head weight is around 5%. > > > > You've implied in quite a few posts that an unhelmeted cyclist can keep > > their head from impacting the ground in a fall by use of their neck muscles, > > and you've also stated that a helmeted cyclist's neck muscles would not be > > able to overcome the additional momentum of the helmet. Given the small > > additional mass of a modern helmet, I strongly suspect your argument is > > specious (a nice way of saying you're pulling it out of your ass). > > It's not just weight, it's size too. You'd have an easier job keeping > an unhelmeted head off the deck than a zero weight helmet because you > don't have to keep it up the extra distance required by the additional > size of the helmet. > The head is kept up by reflex action, and the reflexes are working on a > self-knowledge of where the head is and extends to. Unless you make a > habit of sliding around tarmac in a cycle helmet then the reflex to keep > the head up is using information on the head, not the helmeted head. The reflex to keep one's head off the deck does not concern itself with an extra 2 cm of radius...it's a neuromuscular response, and the response is to keep the head up as much as possible, regardless of size or headgear. To imply that a helmeted head will smack the ground with force, because one's reflexive reaction to an impending impact miscalculated the additional effective head size occasioned by the helmet is simply ludicrous. > > This is quite easy to see safely in practice: wear a helmet in a cave > and you'll bang your head far more often than if you don't (though in > this case since you'll almost certainly be banging it anyway, and are > never above walking pace, it's definitely worth wearing!). True perhaps, but that's not at all the same as the reflexive reactions to protect one's skull that occur during falls. > > > Yet again the clear message is that "helmets are dangerous". > > No, it is that they are *potentially* dangerous and are *not* a clear win. > > > Do you have any studies to back up your rather bizarre assertions that > > helmets increase the dangers of head impact/neck injuries? Or, is this > > merely yet more of your anti-helmet crusade? > > Go to www.cyclehelmets.org and get reading. > > For example, you can find one that suggests you're 7 times more likely > to hit your head in a crash with a helmet than without in > Wasserman RC, Waller JA, Monty MJ, Emery AB, Robinson DR. Bicyclists, > helmets and head injuries: a rider-based study of helmet use and > effectiveness. 1988. American Journal of Public Health: 1988 > Sep;78(9):1220-1 > > Not a study, but an expert opinion you'll find there is, "the very > eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried > repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for > either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer > wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that > they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without > cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle > helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." > > It isn't an anti-helmet crusade, it's a get real about the realities of > what you can really expect crusade. If I was "anti helmet" I wouldn't > own and occasionally wear one. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                           Date: 23 May 2006 16:12:04 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > The reflex to keep one's head off the deck does not concern itself with an > extra 2 cm of radius...it's a neuromuscular response, and the response is to > keep the head up as much as possible, regardless of size or headgear. Quite so, but the muscles and overall physiology and what is needed to keep one's head safe (and thus capable of passing one's genes on) is supported by several million years of evolution of not being bigger than it is, which isn't the case with heads in helmets (i.e., if the head needed picking up more than it does there may have been reasons to evolve more effective means of doing so, but you won't develop such mechanisms just for the sake of it). As the publication I pointed to suggests, there *is* evidence that you're considerably more likely to hit your head, however "ludicrous" what I happen to be saying. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                             Date: 23 May 2006 15:28:06 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > GaryG wrote: > >> The reflex to keep one's head off the deck does not concern itself >> with an extra 2 cm of radius...it's a neuromuscular response, and >> the response is to keep the head up as much as possible, regardless >> of size or headgear. > > Quite so, but the muscles and overall physiology and what is needed to > keep one's head safe (and thus capable of passing one's genes on) is > supported by several million years of evolution of not being bigger > than it is, which isn't the case with heads in helmets (i.e., if the > head needed picking up more than it does there may have been reasons > to evolve more effective means of doing so, but you won't develop such > mechanisms just for the sake of it). So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL                                               Date: 23 May 2006 20:12:51 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both reproduce and be safe, probably... I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's try again: It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the deck as possible. It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and heavier head. In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. How's that? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                 Date: 23 May 2006 19:24:41 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4dh55hF1aktk8U1@individual.net... > Sorni wrote: > > > So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL > > In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both > reproduce and be safe, probably... > > I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's > try again: > > It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. > Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the > deck as possible. > It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the > muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. > Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and > heavier head. > In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to > take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. > > How's that? If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you might have an argument. But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my unprotected scalp. GG > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                   Date: 24 May 2006 09:01:31 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you > might have an argument. > > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever... Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from hitting the deck given the same support. > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. It's hardly "mere speculation" that bigger targets are easier to hit. What about the paper I suggested? > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my > unprotected scalp. Fine, but that's not the point at hand. Yes, if someone whacks me over the head with a baseball bat I'd sooner be wearing a helmet than a cycling cap. But if the bat is swung vigorously 1cm away from my head then the fact is the helmet /then/ makes me worse off. Which it wouldn't do if it was /only/ ever a benefit or totally irrelevant. Thus, you cannot say for /sure/ that in an accident you must be better off with a helmet. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                     Date: 24 May 2006 06:50:43 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4dii6sF1apgnoU1@individual.net... > GaryG wrote: > > > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you > > might have an argument. > > > > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, > > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever... > > Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from > hitting the deck given the same support. > > > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. > > It's hardly "mere speculation" that bigger targets are easier to hit. > > What about the paper I suggested? > > > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in > > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd > > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my > > unprotected scalp. > > Fine, but that's not the point at hand. Yes, if someone whacks me over > the head with a baseball bat I'd sooner be wearing a helmet than a > cycling cap. But if the bat is swung vigorously 1cm away from my head > then the fact is the helmet /then/ makes me worse off. Yet another specious, irrelevant analogy. In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball bat or a cave wall. In the fraction of a second prior to impact, the whole body does whatever it can to protect itself. This can include using the arms to protect the head or absorb the impact, rolling to spread out the impact forces, etc. (of course, depending on the type of fall and the forces involved, these manuevers may prove ineffective). You're really grasping at straws if you're suggesting that the extra 2 cm of radius of a modern helmet would result in some sort of injury that would not otherwise occur were one not be wearing a helmet. The rate of such incidents must be vanishly small (assuming they've ever actually occurred), compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was protected from injury. GG > > Which it wouldn't do if it was /only/ ever a benefit or totally irrelevant. > > Thus, you cannot say for /sure/ that in an accident you must be better > off with a helmet. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                       Date: 24 May 2006 09:46:12 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 24 May 2006 06:50:43 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: [snip] >Yet another specious, irrelevant analogy. > >In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the >ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball bat or a >cave wall. > >In the fraction of a second prior to impact, the whole body does whatever it >can to protect itself. This can include using the arms to protect the head >or absorb the impact, rolling to spread out the impact forces, etc. (of >course, depending on the type of fall and the forces involved, these >manuevers may prove ineffective). > >You're really grasping at straws if you're suggesting that the extra 2 cm of >radius of a modern helmet would result in some sort of injury that would not >otherwise occur were one not be wearing a helmet. The rate of such >incidents must be vanishly small (assuming they've ever actually occurred), >compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was protected >from injury. > >GG Dear Gary, The grazing impact has a nasty likelihood of giving your head a sharp wrench. More and more studies show that severe head injuries are not from simple direct impact, but instead from abrupt rotation. The repeated lack of any improvement in the severe head injury and fatality rate after helmet use skyrockets is puzzling. One of the possible explanations is that whatever protection helmets offer against direct impact is lost because they increase the effective size of the rider's head, leading to more "grazing" impacts with a longer lever arm, and thus more rotational injuries. This is a frequently mentioned point, both in these threads and in studies, not grasping at straws. Measure a helmet fore and aft, measure your head the same way, compare the two lengths, and you'll see how much of a leverage increase is likely. They're not quite this bad: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/s/lot-1243957.html Cheers, Carl Fogel                                                       Date: 24 May 2006 15:41:02 From: Espressopithecus (Java Man) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <qvZcg.3$Ft.1@fe04.lga >, sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com says... > You're really grasping at straws if you're suggesting that the extra 2 cm of > radius of a modern helmet would result in some sort of injury that would not > otherwise occur were one not be wearing a helmet. The rate of such > incidents must be vanishly small (assuming they've ever actually occurred), > compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was protected > from injury. > It makes no sense to deny that the additional cms. of diameter and the extra grams of weight added by wearing a helmet can be expected to cause a difference in the propensity of the head to contact solid objects. In an entire MHL nation of cyclists, there is bound to be a fraction of incidents in which the few added cm. and grams of helmet cause contact with solid objects that would not occur without a helmet. All of these effects are at the gin, but whenever one analyzes population statistics, the differences in the variable being studied are usually at the gin anyway. Rick                                                       Date: 24 May 2006 15:21:04 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:4dii6sF1apgnoU1@individual.net... >> GaryG wrote: >> >>> If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless >>> steel, you might have an argument. >>> >>> But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% >>> additional mass, I still think your arguments in this regard have >>> no merit whatsoever... >> >> Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from >> hitting the deck given the same support. >> >>> are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them >>> up. >> >> It's hardly "mere speculation" that bigger targets are easier to hit. >> >> What about the paper I suggested? >> >>> Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the >>> ground in a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of >>> the fall, etc.), I'd much rather have a helmet absorb the initial >>> impact instead of my unprotected scalp. >> >> Fine, but that's not the point at hand. Yes, if someone whacks me >> over the head with a baseball bat I'd sooner be wearing a helmet >> than a cycling cap. But if the bat is swung vigorously 1cm away >> from my head then the fact is the helmet /then/ makes me worse off. > > Yet another specious, irrelevant analogy. > > In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the > ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball > bat or a cave wall. > > In the fraction of a second prior to impact, the whole body does > whatever it can to protect itself. This can include using the arms > to protect the head or absorb the impact, rolling to spread out the > impact forces, etc. (of course, depending on the type of fall and the > forces involved, these manuevers may prove ineffective). > > You're really grasping at straws if you're suggesting that the extra > 2 cm of radius of a modern helmet would result in some sort of injury > that would not otherwise occur were one not be wearing a helmet. The > rate of such incidents must be vanishly small (assuming they've ever > actually occurred), compared to the rate of incidents in which a > helmeted head was protected from injury. You're wasting your breath, Gary. They just don't want to hear it.                                                       Date: 24 May 2006 15:45:21 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > Yet another specious, irrelevant analogy. So you say... > In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the > ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball bat or a > cave wall. Is it necessarily so? You don't seem to be taking into account the possibility of a slide, which is certainly far more common IME than over the bars (which I've only ever managed twice in my life to date, last time I was wearing a helmet and since I landed on my chin it did me bugger all good). > In the fraction of a second prior to impact, the whole body does whatever it > can to protect itself. This can include using the arms to protect the head > or absorb the impact, rolling to spread out the impact forces, etc. (of > course, depending on the type of fall and the forces involved, these > manuevers may prove ineffective). It will do whatever it can, but while "whatever it can" is sometimes enough at other times it isn't. Clearly there is a line between success and failure, and that line will move if the head is bigger. > You're really grasping at straws if you're suggesting that the extra 2 cm of > radius of a modern helmet would result in some sort of injury that would not > otherwise occur were one not be wearing a helmet. Having asked for a study I gave you a reference suggesting that those wearing a helmet are 7 times as likely to hit their heads if they crash. You seem to be /rekably/ good at ignoring any followup to that, preferring to accuse me of misdirection and clutching at straws. > The rate of such > incidents must be vanishly small (assuming they've ever actually occurred) So I wonder where the figures above came from? > compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was protected > from injury. So why don't any benefits show up in population data from increased helmet wearing? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                         Date: 24 May 2006 15:39:04 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > GaryG wrote: >> In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the >> ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball >> bat or a cave wall. > Is it necessarily so? You don't seem to be taking into account the > possibility of a slide, which is certainly far more common IME than > over the bars (which I've only ever managed twice in my life to date, > last time I was wearing a helmet and since I landed on my chin it did > me bugger all good). So what if you'd landed on the /side/ of your head? Or the back? Or the top? Or the forefront (hairline not chin)? > Having asked for a study I gave you a reference suggesting that those > wearing a helmet are 7 times as likely to hit their heads if they > crash. SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think that study could be hugely flawed? If it's from somewhere with MHLs in effect, is it just possible that people LIE to avoid fines or at least lectures? > So I wonder where the figures above came from? Thin air? Clear bias? Someone's butt? >> compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was >> protected from injury. > So why don't any benefits show up in population data from increased > helmet wearing? People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons ranging from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to just wanting to avoid a scolding. And, of course, people who ARE lidded often aren't hurt and so don't end up being counted at all. FACT: because people lie about it, the number of injured helmet wearers is LESS than is reported. FACT: therefore, the number of unhelmeted injured is GREATER than is reported. (Is there ever a case where someone was wearing a helmet and lied and said he or she wasn't??? Other than one of you guys, maybe, I don't think so...) Ayyup.                                                           Date: 25 May 2006 08:35:45 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons ranging > from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to just > wanting to avoid a scolding. Particularly unlikely in the case of the *dead* people, I feel, who tend towards being less chatty on the whole. To quote Riley Geary, a traffic safety analyst at the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis in Arlington, VA, "helmeted cyclists are still managing to get themselves killed at roughly similar rates to their formerly unhelmeted counterparts". How do you explain that, if helmets are a clear benefit and are saving lives? Your "they tell LIES" theory does rather miss the k here. Are you big enough to admit the clear and obvious flaw? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                             Date: 25 May 2006 14:51:55 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: > >> People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons >> ranging from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging >> spouses to just wanting to avoid a scolding. > > Particularly unlikely in the case of the *dead* people, I feel, who > tend towards being less chatty on the whole. To quote Riley Geary, a > traffic safety analyst at the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis in > Arlington, VA, "helmeted cyclists are still managing to get themselves > killed at roughly similar rates to their formerly unhelmeted > counterparts". > How do you explain that, if helmets are a clear benefit and are saving > lives? Your "they tell LIES" theory does rather miss the k here. > Are you big enough to admit the clear and obvious flaw? Easy. I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the severity of some types of injuries. * May have thought and/or said so years ago. Today I think it's /conceivable/ that a helmet can prevent a fatal injury in certain highly specific conditions, but highly unlikely. Certainly not on any type of regular basis. B                                                               Date: 25 May 2006 19:35:23 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:51:55 GMT, "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote: > >.... I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the >severity of some types of injuries. > >* May have thought and/or said so years ago. Today I think it's >/conceivable/ that a helmet can prevent a fatal injury in certain highly >specific conditions, but highly unlikely. Certainly not on any type of >regular basis. > >B > Well I guess I could say a helmet saved *my* life. You see the only time I ever wear one is while cycling, and one nurse told me that being aerobically fit from my bikingactivity is likely the reason I grew an alternate blood supply for the area where my heart was damaged last October, allowing me to survive and recover from the major attack I experienced last October. Plus it helps against sunburn! But I don't count on my foam hat for injury prevention. For that purpose I concentrate on accident prevention. And it does seem likely to me that the helmet could easily be a factor in rotational injuries. Indiana Mike                                                               Date: 25 May 2006 15:58:07 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Easy. I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the > severity of some types of injuries. But if they lessen /serious/ injuries they should be bringing some fatal accidents back to merely serious, bringing the death rate down. But they don't. As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                                 Date: 25 May 2006 15:07:03 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: > >> Easy. I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the >> severity of some types of injuries. > > But if they lessen /serious/ injuries they should be bringing some > fatal accidents back to merely serious, bringing the death rate down. > But they don't. > > As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really > denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/. If you read the threads, a lot of people ARE "denying that". In fact, they say that helmets are /dangerous/, and one even claims that studies (or at least *a* study) show(s) that you're 7 times more likely to hit your head wearing a lid versus not wearing one.                                                                   Date: 25 May 2006 16:13:13 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: >> As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really >> denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/. > > If you read the threads, a lot of people ARE "denying that". In fact, they > say that helmets are /dangerous/, and one even claims that studies (or at > least *a* study) show(s) that you're 7 times more likely to hit your head > wearing a lid versus not wearing one. I know it's a tall order, but stop and think about it... the above are /not/ mutually exclusive. I wear a helmet caving not to prevent me hitting my head, but to prevent me /painfully/ hitting my head. Given I'm not over walking pace in a cave and the roof tends to be low and irregular, I do bang my head a lot, and a lot more than I would without it since it's bigger than my head without it. But overall pain is less with it on, depsite more knocks. And a helmet /can/ create problems, so it /can/ be dangerous. That doesn't stop it mitigating a bruise, and it doesn't mean for every bruise one mitigates it breaks a neck. It's not a simplistic case of one or the other. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                             Date: 25 May 2006 04:33:23 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:4dl52iF1aufddU1@individual.net... > Sorni wrote: > >> People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons >> ranging from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to >> just wanting to avoid a scolding. > > Particularly unlikely in the case of the *dead* people, I feel, who tend > towards being less chatty on the whole. To quote Riley Geary, a traffic > safety analyst at the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis in Arlington, > VA, "helmeted cyclists are still managing to get themselves killed at > roughly similar rates to their formerly unhelmeted counterparts". > > How do you explain that, if helmets are a clear benefit and are saving > lives? Your "they tell LIES" theory does rather miss the k here. Are > you big enough to admit the clear and obvious flaw? > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Every time I see Peter's signature above I go into a rage. I can feel my blood pressure rise and my pulse quicken. More than anything in this world I want to whack him about the head for his effrontery. How dare he have a more prolix signature than I, when I am truly Great (besides being a Great Saint) and he is a nobody and a nothing. I hereby challenge him to a duel to the death. I simply can't bear his stupid signature any longer. One of us has got to go. Let us do it on the banks of the Ohio. Vandeman can be my second. Why can't he have a modest and humble signature like mine! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                                               Date: 25 May 2006 19:25:56 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:33:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote <snip > >> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer >> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital >> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK >> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ > >Every time I see Peter's signature above I go into a rage. I can feel my >blood pressure rise and my pulse quicken. More than anything in this world I >want to whack him about the head for his effrontery. How dare he have a more >prolix signature than I, when I am truly Great (besides being a Great Saint) >and he is a nobody and a nothing. How dare you call Peter Clinch a nothing? We (the perceptive among the group) know him to be a Medical Physics IT Officer. > >I hereby challenge him to a duel to the death. I simply can't bear his >stupid signature any longer. One of us has got to go. Let us do it on the >banks of the Ohio. Vandeman can be my second. Yes, please enter several of these 'duels to the death'! As many as it takes. Although the folks over at RBM would surely miss you. Indiana Mike Indiana Mike > >Why can't he have a modest and humble signature like mine! > >Regards, > >Mister Ed >                                                                 Date: 27 May 2006 00:23:12 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:7t0c72pv01ob6ck1o2ro6d0gq661kofakv@4ax.com... [newsgroups restored] > On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:33:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote > <snip> >>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer >>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital >>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK >>> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ >> >>Every time I see Peter's signature above I go into a rage. I can feel my >>blood pressure rise and my pulse quicken. More than anything in this world >>I >>want to whack him about the head for his effrontery. How dare he have a >>more >>prolix signature than I, when I am truly Great (besides being a Great >>Saint) >>and he is a nobody and a nothing. > > How dare you call Peter Clinch a nothing? We (the perceptive among the > group) know him to be a Medical Physics IT Officer. He has never yet told me what a Medical Physics IT Officer is and I absolutely refuse to look it up. But nonetheless, SOMETHING needs to be done about his signature. Why should I have a heart attack or stroke just because he refuses to be a modest and humble person like me. >>I hereby challenge him to a duel to the death. I simply can't bear his >>stupid signature any longer. One of us has got to go. Let us do it on the >>banks of the Ohio. Vandeman can be my second. > > Yes, please enter several of these 'duels to the death'! > > As many as it takes. > > Although the folks over at RBM would surely miss you. The folks at RBM do not yet know Ed Dolan the Great like the folks at ARBR do. I will grow on them like a fungus over time. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                                           Date: 24 May 2006 20:11:20 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > So what if you'd landed on the /side/ of your head? Or the back? Or the > top? Or the forefront (hairline not chin)? So then it might have done me some good. And what if I'd landed in a twisting fall so that the helmet could have applied some extra leverage to my neck? Then it might have done me some bad. All conjecture. So what? > SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think > that study could be hugely flawed? Oh, so let's just assume it's junk without any further attention... if only people would have done that with 85% helmet effectiveness! > Thin air? Clear bias? Someone's butt? Don't go and look, or anything like that! > People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons ranging > from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to just > wanting to avoid a scolding. Deary me. Unfortunately your risible attempts at an explanation don't get you anywhere with Hewson's work in the UK showing no benefit, because there have been ni successful claims for contributory negligence and there isn't an MHL to lie your way past. > And, of course, people who ARE lidded often aren't hurt and so don't end up > being counted at all. So that should see a drop in the head injuries, but no such thing ocurrs. > FACT: because people lie about it, the number of injured helmet wearers is > LESS than is reported. The "FACT" is pure supposition on your part. > FACT: therefore, the number of unhelmeted injured is GREATER than is > reported. the "FACT" is pure supposition on your part. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                     Date: 24 May 2006 10:02:54 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from > hitting the deck given the same support. <typo time > That should be hard/er/, rather than just hard </typo time > Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                   Date: 24 May 2006 05:34:52 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <esPcg.274$LZ.7@fe05.lga >, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:4dh55hF1aktk8U1@individual.net... > > It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. > > Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the > > deck as possible. > > It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the > > muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. > > Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and > > heavier head. > > In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to > > take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. > > > > How's that? > > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you > might have an argument. > > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. I wear a hard hat, and always clank it into stuff. I will say to myself, "Self, you are wearing a hard hat. Watch your step." For a while that works, then I stop devoting attention to such a ridiculous thought: that my head is bigger than it is. Ludicrous. Then Blam! I smacked it into something again. I have been wearing eyeglasses for decades, and still knock theem off in close quarters. We really have hardwired into us how big our head is. Even a billed cap is knocked askew, as often as not. > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my > unprotected scalp. If I had not been wearing that impossible hard hat, I would never have knocked it or my head into solid objects. Noone will mistake me for Mikhail Baryshnikov, yet I do not smack my unadorned head into solid objects; not at all. -- Michael Press                                                   Date: 24 May 2006 04:14:57 From: Robin Hubert Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:4dh55hF1aktk8U1@individual.net... > >>Sorni wrote: >> >> >>>So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL >> >>In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both >>reproduce and be safe, probably... >> >>I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's >>try again: >> >>It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. >>Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the >>deck as possible. >>It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the >>muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. >>Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and >>heavier head. >>In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to >>take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. >> >>How's that? > > > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you > might have an argument. > > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. > > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my > unprotected scalp. > > GG > > >>Pete. >>-- >>Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer >>Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital >>Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK >>net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ > > > WTF? Cross-posting to rec.bicycles.ketplace?!? Aren't you worried about all the other potentially fatal wounds you might receive in an accident? How do those risks compare to those from head injuries? Robin Hubert                                                     Date: 23 May 2006 22:02:34 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Robin Hubert" <cv2572@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:55Rcg.6006$x4.4839@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > GaryG wrote: > > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > > news:4dh55hF1aktk8U1@individual.net... > > > >>Sorni wrote: > >> > >> > >>>So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL > >> > >>In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both > >>reproduce and be safe, probably... > >> > >>I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's > >>try again: > >> > >>It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. > >>Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the > >>deck as possible. > >>It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the > >>muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. > >>Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and > >>heavier head. > >>In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to > >>take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. > >> > >>How's that? > > > > > > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you > > might have an argument. > > > > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass, > > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they > > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up. > > > > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in > > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd > > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my > > unprotected scalp. > > > > GG > > > > > >>Pete. > >>-- > >>Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > >>Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > >>Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > >>net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ > > > > > > > > WTF? Cross-posting to rec.bicycles.ketplace?!? > > Aren't you worried about all the other potentially fatal wounds you > might receive in an accident? How do those risks compare to those from > head injuries? > > > Robin Hubert My apologies...I just hit Reply to Peter's message and didn't notice that it was cross-posted to rbm. I agree that rbm is an inappropriate group for this topic, so I've trimmed it off. GG                                                 Date: 23 May 2006 19:36:00 From: Espressopithecus (Java Man) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <4dh55hF1aktk8U1@individual.net >, p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk says... > Sorni wrote: > > > So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL > > In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both > reproduce and be safe, probably... > > I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's > try again: > > It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex. > Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the > deck as possible. > It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the > muscles cannot keep the head off the deck. > Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and > heavier head. > In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to > take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one. . . . and in crashes involving higher decelerations (e.g. at higher speeds, etc.). Rick                                   Date: 20 May 2006 15:32:38 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? foots wrote: > I hit a pothole yesterday, lost control and went down. Besides the > road rash on my left leg and arm, my neck has a cramp that concerns me > a little. I can remember when my head hit the pavement, it hit hard, I > thought the helmut was going to shatter into pieces, but that turned > out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I > know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I > not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know > it reduced my injuries considerably. Sorry, you're not allowed to think that (at least on some of these groups). HTH, BS                               Date: 14 May 2006 21:39:53 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing > mirror, drainage slots and other such things. Including hedges... > You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being > aware enough to avoid them Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking, which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors. > a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a > cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the > street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the > shopping.... The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed is collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a spec that helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't believe me. Physical protection for cyclists is much better served by not being in collisions. > Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? > We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are > discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to > reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where > blame were to lie). Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous? ~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips and falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs or just walking down the street. So in terms of terminal potential, it's a risky activity, and to a similar extent to utility cycling. Cycling is not particularly more dangerous in terms of deaths and serious injuries than being a pedestrian, and the accidents that do happen are no more productive of head injuries. So it makes sense to compare the risk avoidance behaviour in one to the other. > Its hard to sport trends in small samples. Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population sized samples. > But I have seen > enough material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists > out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them > considerable injury and maybe even their lives. Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles or they're overestimating how bad their crashes were. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                 Date: 15 May 2006 00:23:27 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing >> mirror, drainage slots and other such things. > > Including hedges... > >> You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being >> aware enough to avoid them > > Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the > simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking > where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them > on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts. Suppose you're doing 25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the drain? Is that your fault too? > to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking, > which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors. > >> a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a >> cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the >> street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the >> shopping.... > > The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed is > collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a spec that > helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't believe me. > Physical protection for cyclists is much better served by not being in > collisions. Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this : "you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious. But how that has anything to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no helmet is beyond me. > >> Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? >> We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are >> discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to >> reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where blame >> were to lie). > > Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous? Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me. > ~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips and I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving .... > falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs or just > walking down the street. So in terms of terminal potential, it's a > risky activity, and to a similar extent to utility cycling. Cycling > is not particularly more dangerous in terms of deaths and serious > injuries than being a pedestrian, and the accidents that do happen are > no more productive of head injuries. So it makes sense to compare the > risk avoidance behaviour in one to the other. > >> Its hard to sport trends in small samples. > > Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population sized > samples. > >> But I have seen enough material to know that there are a plethora of >> cyclists out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them >> considerable injury and maybe even their lives. > > Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than > unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head > injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles or > they're overestimating how bad their crashes were. > > See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ --                                   Date: 15 May 2006 08:39:01 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts. No, because the odd drainage grate is going to happen but if the odd drainage grate had a significant chance of knocking you off then there's be far more falls than there are. Gravel /can/ take you down, but since my house is accessed by a gravel covered track (on a hill, for extra fun) and I don't make a habit of falling off on it, the fact that there's /some/ potential for losing it isn't necessarily an excuse to wear a helmet. > Suppose you're doing > 25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the > drain? Is that your fault too? Emphatically tes, because it means you're in the gutter to start with. You should not be in the gutter to start with, so if you're not and a bus pulls alongside as you move and you can't go out further, you'll still miss it. > Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this : > "you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind > numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious. But not so onvious that you keep bringing up examples where the underlying problem is riding in the wrong place on the road which in turn increases your chances of having an accident! > But how that has anything > to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no > helmet is beyond me. The point is that the "more protection" you keep on about is (a) still not the degree that will save lives, and (b) is not clear to expert witnesses of far more experinece than either of us, as I've already outlined for you. > Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some > reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where > people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential > for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me. Because the potential to save a head injury exists for other similarly risky activities where it is not taken, so what is exceptional about cycling that it is a good idea there, but not elsewhere where there are similar risks? The answer, I suspect, is people have a misconception about the relative risks of cycling. Body armour is available for cyclists and will provide you more protection against injury than if you don't wear it, so why not wear it? Same logic applies, yet is not being applied. > I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving .... You suspect wrong. What /is/ so dangerous about juggling? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                     Date: 15 May 2006 11:12:21 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts. > > No, because the odd drainage grate is going to happen but if the odd > drainage grate had a significant chance of knocking you off then > there's be far more falls than there are. Gravel /can/ take you down, > but since my house is accessed by a gravel covered track (on a hill, > for extra fun) and I don't make a habit of falling off on it, the fact > that there's /some/ potential for losing it isn't necessarily an > excuse to wear a helmet. Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection. > >> Suppose you're doing >> 25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the >> drain? Is that your fault too? > > Emphatically tes, because it means you're in the gutter to start > with. You should not be in the gutter to start with, so if you're not > and a bus pulls alongside as you move and you can't go out further, > you'll still miss it. You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their ugly head. > >> Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this : >> "you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind >> numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious. > > But not so onvious that you keep bringing up examples where the > underlying problem is riding in the wrong place on the road which in > turn increases your chances of having an accident! Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a bike, into dangerous riding positions : no amount of being as super human as you appear to be can avoid this. How that has any bearing on the banality of your rhetoric I dont know. > >> But how that has anything >> to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no >> helmet is beyond me. > > The point is that the "more protection" you keep on about is (a) still > not the degree that will save lives, and (b) is not clear to expert > witnesses of far more experinece than either of us, as I've already > outlined for you. Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence that helmets have saved lives. I have never said they will save all or even the majority of lives in the situation where a high speed collision occurs. I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial). > >> Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some >> reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where >> people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential >> for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me. > > Because the potential to save a head injury exists for other similarly > risky activities where it is not taken, so what is exceptional about > cycling that it is a good idea there, but not elsewhere where there > are similar risks? What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and walking etc ... > The answer, I suspect, is people have a misconception about the > relative risks of cycling. Body armour is available for cyclists and > will provide you more protection against injury than if you don't wear > it, so why not wear it? Same logic applies, yet is not being applied. > >> I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving .... > > You suspect wrong. What /is/ so dangerous about juggling? Think about it. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ --                                       Date: 15 May 2006 10:40:49 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already > said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection. I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have ignored it so here it is again: "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant standards in the UK. > You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic > you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather > in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their > ugly head. On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly, and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH, the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something. > Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a > bike, into dangerous riding positions Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher. > Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence > that helmets have saved lives. So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated? > I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for > many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on > blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on > the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial). Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty. > What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from > cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and > walking etc ... Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk /only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous. [what's so risky about juggling?] > Think about it. Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've seen carrying a safety warning. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                         Date: 15 May 2006 12:05:05 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already >> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection. > > I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have > ignored it so here it is again: > > "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, > tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting > for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be > safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, > stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both > with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the > performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a > sweeping claim to be made." > > That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are > responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant > standards in the UK. Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not? > >> You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic >> you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather >> in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their >> ugly head. > > On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly, > and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where > I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH, ??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why? To deflect the thread again thats why. > the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of > serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something. What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here. > >> Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a >> bike, into dangerous riding positions > > Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in > especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing > something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious > accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher. You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened to me that I could not plan for. > >> Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence >> that helmets have saved lives. > > So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any > populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did > the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated? Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple. > >> I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for >> many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on >> blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on >> the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial). > > Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, > and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above > doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty. At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again. > >> What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from >> cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and >> walking etc ... > > Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk > /only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig. > cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To > bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you > engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous. > > [what's so risky about juggling?] >> Think about it. > > Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets > are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've > seen carrying a safety warning. An pint with you must be a riot.                                           Date: 15 May 2006 11:43:32 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with > whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not? If it surely helped then they'd be more inclined to say you must be better off wearing it than not, as they were repeatedly asked. > What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of > protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here. The point is whether it provides protection, and to what degree, is much more sensible to ascertain within a context of overall risk. So body armour will provide /some/ protection, but just leaving it at that doesn't tell you anything useful about whether or not it's useful. Especially if you don't take into account any of the possible pitfalls. > You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for > incidents. On the contrary, I have /lots/ of space to account very specifically for them, and that's one of the reasons they don't pose me particularly bad levels of risk. > I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened > to me that I could not plan for. Yet you're still alive and your head is in one piece. Was that just luck, or riding with sufficient contingency in place to deal with the problems? > Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their > radars : thats why. But all the events that didn't appear on their radars will be in the whole population data, which is precisely why we use the whole population data. And they show no reduction in rates of deaths and serious injury rates as helmet wearing increases. > Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides > more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple. But since the answer is it provides *different* protection, it is only that simple if you're overly simplistic about it. For example, last time I hit my head coming off a bike I was wearing a helmet and it emphatically did /not/ provide more protection, as the injury on my chin bore witness. In an incident where the extra size and weight of a helmeted head makes a difference between hitting your helmeted head or not hitting an unhelmeted head at all, you are clearly worse off with the hat. While OTOH there are many laceration injuries that would benefit from a helmet. So it isn't "yes or no", it's "maybe, depending on a few things". "It provides more protection, period" is a simplistic and sweeping generalisation that means nothing useful. It needs qualifying to be useful. "A helmet probably provides useful protection against minor injuries such as lacerations to those parts of the head it covers" would probably be a fair comment, just as it would be for body armour. But only when you take into account the degree of risk of such minor injuries in the first place and weigh in the downsides of wearing it do you have the sort of data that can really be useful to make an informed decision. > At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again. No. The question put was not "at the brain surgery level", it was would a wearer be "better off". Nothing more, nothing less. > err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not > understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than > cycling" In which case the question returns and remains: "what is so special about cycling that it requires discussing more protective measures than other equally risky activities that cyclists partake in?" Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                           Date: 15 May 2006 05:41:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:8764k77gdq.fsf@news.europe.ch... > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> Hadron Quark wrote: >> >>> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already >>> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides >>> protection. >> >> I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have >> ignored it so here it is again: >> >> "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, >> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting >> for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be >> safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, >> stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both >> with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the >> performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a >> sweeping claim to be made." >> >> That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are >> responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant >> standards in the UK. > > Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with > whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not? > >> >>> You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic >>> you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather >>> in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears >>> their >>> ugly head. >> >> On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly, >> and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where >> I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH, > > ??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why? > To deflect the thread again thats why. > >> the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of >> serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something. > > What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of > protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here. > >> >>> Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a >>> bike, into dangerous riding positions >> >> Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in >> especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing >> something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious >> accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher. > > You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for > incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened > to me that I could not plan for. > >> >>> Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already >>> evidence >>> that helmets have saved lives. >> >> So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any >> populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did >> the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated? > > Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their > radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides > more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple. > >> >>> I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for >>> many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on >>> blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on >>> the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial). >> >> Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, >> and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above >> doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty. > > At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again. > >> >>> What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from >>> cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and >>> walking etc ... >> >> Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk >> /only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it > > err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not > understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than > cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig. > >> cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To >> bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you >> engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous. >> >> [what's so risky about juggling?] >>> Think about it. >> >> Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets >> are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've >> seen carrying a safety warning. > > An pint with you must be a riot. Do not waste much breath on this English-Scottish numskull. Note his signature: Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Surely, that ought to tell you everything you will ever need to know about him. He should get himself a nice modest humble signature like mine. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                   Date: 14 May 2006 02:44:22 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tom Kunich wrote: > "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote in message > news:QRm9g.2309$G95.2196@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> Peter Clinch wrote: >>> MykalCrooks wrote: >>> >>>> Thus, over the decades, I've a >>>> demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it. >>> >>>> And so I wear a helmet. >>> >>> Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of >>> kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a >>> helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly? >> >> Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph? > > A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy > into the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your > head. Turning around fast and hitting your head can exceed this > speed. In fact, one of the larger sources of fatal head injuries are > accidents in the home. > I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere > but on a bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head > injuries and bicycling isn't among them? Sigh. If I fall while descending a steep mountain road, I'd like a helmet between my SKIDDING skull and the pavement. If I slam into a wall head first at 40+ mph, well, I'd still like to at least have one on but I know it won't save my life or brain function. (And yes, if I get shot in the chest, I might as well have SOMETHING in the way of the bullet, even if it doesn't save me. At least my corpse won't be found naked.)                 Date: 13 May 2006 19:04:25 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph? No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my doubts... >> And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping >> and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those >> either. Nor does anyone else I see. > > Much slower speeds; much lower forces. (Not to mention much softer surface, > at least for XC skiing.) XC ski does involve downhill, and negotiating them one can easily reach speeds that are relevant to cycles. And the trees and rocks along the trails are just as hard as the trees and rocks alongside MTB trails and roads. But again the case that typical cycle helmets are only built to specifications where lower speeds are what you can expect them to work at, and you still haven't taken that on board. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                   Date: 13 May 2006 21:30:20 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: > >> Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph? > > No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it > will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little > energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my > doubts... But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.                     Date: 14 May 2006 11:29:20 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO. Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since, say, 1985? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                       Date: 14 May 2006 14:49:20 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: > >> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO. > > Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or > so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up > means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since, > say, 1985? Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies and stats. Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER FILED. Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Never mind, of course, that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse -- without the lid. I'll take the protection, thanks. You certainly don't have to.                         Date: 14 May 2006 15:57:52 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the > pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER > FILED. So if this would have been worth attending ER for without a hat then it would have been in the records, and the absence of such incidents would register as a fall in injury rates, if there absence was significant. It appears it isn't. > Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see > they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Again, it will go into the population stats where the sum total of all the incidents will give you a better indication of what you might expect. > Never mind, of course, > that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse -- > without the lid. But you don't actually know that. For example, if it were an accident where the extra size and weight of the lid meant the difference between hitting the head and not hitting at all, then it wouldn't have been at least as bad. I don't know that would have been the case, but you don't know it wouldn't. > I'll take the protection, thanks. As is your choice. I choose to take it at certain times, like technical MTBing. What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not* wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they /must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other things you do without one don't have a significant chance of landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                           Date: 14 May 2006 15:05:31 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Sorni wrote: >> I'll take the protection, thanks. > As is your choice. TYVM. Let the threads cease! > ... What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not* > wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions > about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they > /must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other > things you do without one don't have a significant chance of > landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well. I'll worry about my own expectations, TYVM. (And they're not as you describe, anyway.) Darn, we almost had it there...           Date: 12 May 2006 14:32:33 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > Frank impled that in the bit I've copied below: > > Hadron: >>> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a >>> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial >>> in this case. > Frank: >> If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak >> capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But >> population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. >> Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not >> beneficial. I still don't see where you picked up anything about the relative merits of cotton caps, so again, I wonder where you inferred that? > No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground, any more than > auto drivers are in the habit of driving into walls or other vehicles at > speed...but, clearly these things do happen and in both cases appropriate > safety devices are routinely employed, though rarely needed. They also happen to pedestrians, who also happen to get killed by them from time to time. Trips and falls kill ~350 folk under 75 in the UK every year, so how come helmets aren't appropriate safety devices for them? > In my own case, in the last 15 years of regular cycling my head has impacted > the ground on several occasions (mostly while mountain biking). My data specifically exclude MTBing and since it's an arena where people are doing deliberately tricky things as a recreation rather than just getting about on the roads it would be silly for me to try and persuade you they're pointless off road, but also for you to draw on MTB experience to say why you should wear one on. > Ummm....we're talking about cycling here. You can argue against wearing > helmets while walking in another group :-) Yes, I'm talking about cycling. I don't wear a helmet road cycling because it's not very dangerous. It is similarly dangerous to walking, which almost everyone does so it's a useful barometer of the degree to which protective clothing is considered appropriate. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 10 May 2006 18:13:41 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Eric wrote: > Hadron Quark wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > >> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. > >> > >> - Frank Krygowski > >> > > > > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause > > more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the > > coat peg? > > Any idea why nobody thought of this before? 'Cause it's called a "straw man argument."   Date: 10 May 2006 18:08:56 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? He'd already quoted you the British Medical Journal. Hadron Quark wrote: > > > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause > more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the > coat peg? > > --   Date: 10 May 2006 18:03:00 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Sid wrote: > > > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably > > > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb > > > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. > > > > > > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > > > > > Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall, you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow guards -- the works?     Date: 11 May 2006 22:49:10 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1147309380.575117.267410@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Sid wrote: > > > > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably > > > > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb > > > > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. > > > > > > > > > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > > > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > > > > > > > > > Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > > grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? > > > The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall, > you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow > guards -- the works? There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll. Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet wear? GG       Date: 12 May 2006 00:20:51 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:49:10 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: >"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1147309380.575117.267410@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... [snip] >> The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall, >> you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow >> guards -- the works? > >There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll. > >Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet >wear? > >GG Dear Gary, Assuming in this tangled thread that you're asking NYC XYZ who is forcing him to wear a helmet . . . New York State Law Passengers under 5 1989 State Law Riders under 14* 1994/04 Eastchester* Under 19 2004 Erie County Parks All ages 1993 Greenburgh All ages 1994 Guilderland Under 14 1992 Rockland County All ages 1992 Onondaga County Under 18 2001 Suffolk County 14 to 17 2000 http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm (That list of mandatory helmet laws in New York state may be out of date.) Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 10 May 2006 11:01:00 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > > Are you a dumbass, or just a troll? Are my turkey sandwich, or do you just have the IQ of one? > Exposure to sunlight during normal use > is not the same thing as leaving a helmet on the dash of a car with the > windows rolled up. Exposure to sunlight is exposure to heat. The manual says do not expose to heat, direct or indirect. > Babies and helmets can be exposed to the former, but > will perish in the latter. It's really not that difficult to see the > difference. Just asking. Hope you didn't lose any sleep over it. > GG   Date: 10 May 2006 08:28:29 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. > > Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078. > Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got > lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made > to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened. > Hmm....one of the "dangers" often cited is the helmet "sticking" to the pavement after impact. The cloth covered styrofoam helmets of ca. 1988 were likely more prone to that than the later "microshell" helmets (although the helmet makers never came right out and said so, the "microshell"s real purpose was to eliminate, or at least reduce, the sticking-to-the-pavement problem). Also, the truly useless Skid-lid was in (for the time) relatively widespread use ca. 1988. I also wonder where the "8 million" sample size came from. What was the demographic? Prior to ~ 1990, I knew, first hand, of only three (yes, three) cyclists who wore helmets (one V-1 Pro and two cloth covered foam shells). And I hung around with alot of cyclists. > > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than > > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference? > > Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not, > so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform > to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear > because they wouldn't do any harm. > If you want to take a swipe at Mr. Quark, grow some balls and do it directly.   Date: 10 May 2006 07:58:27 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988? > > > > Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes. > > > > And? > > > > > > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam > "microshell" helmets were not yet on the ket. There were styrofoam > shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent > entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very > tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And > the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but > those weren't even helmets. > > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference? Of course, there were passionate defenders of all those helmets back then, too. Here are several pertinent points: 1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to pavement than today's microshell hats. 2) In those days, rabid helmet promotion had not taken hold. Thus, the people in helmets were closer to the "early adopters." There's a good probability that the early adopters of safety equipment are the most safety conscious people. 3) 1988 is precisely when Thompson, Rivara et. al. were doing their "85%!!!!" study. If you really think those helmets were so different from todays (despite very similar certification tests) you should be among those arguing against every claim of "85%!!!!" Certainly, every study since 1988 (or it's publishing date, 1989) has found far less benefit for helmet use - even the larger one done by the same biased team. And the largest and least biased and most up-to-date studies are the ones that have actually found negative benefit (disbenefit, if you will) from helmet use. So if you prefer to reject the '80s information and go with 2006, let's all agree to do so. Let's go with http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/ch/ac722.pdf - Frank Krygowski     Date: 10 May 2006 21:14:54 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 10 May 2006 07:58:27 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use >than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more >protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to >pavement than today's microshell hats. I'd speculate that the typical helmet in use in 1988 was more protective than helmets nowadays in terms of dealing with impacts -- as you said they were more substantial. But good helmets today seem to fit much better, which might help with protection. So which is safer overall? I'm not sure. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************   Date: 10 May 2006 07:44:50 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than running: > > 1) faster Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters. When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed? > 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should runners don them in winter? > 3) higher ?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's standing. > 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when the runner generally does not. > 5) more prone to slip stream This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a stability problem due to "slipstream." > 6) more prone to cross winds Ditto. If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really, really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data. One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475. Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists. (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a well-developed, westernized urban area.) Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume, walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners. Read the paper and see the numbers. > Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO. Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_ certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find some? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Jun 2006 18:35:10 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <beMfg.759$Bd4.709@fe06.lga >, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > writes: > Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast > and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" > who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a > cigarette dangling between their lips). Nobody balances a case of beer on their handlebar. That's too inviting of disaster. Better to nestle it under one arm like a hen guarding her brood, or a cyclist-surfer taking his/her board to the beach. Better yet is 6-pack cans (not glass) in stout bags dangled from the brake levers, bar ends, or upturned drops -- then they're less susceptible to shaking. The aluminum cans might later lead to Alzheimer's, but in the meantime they can do for seatpost shims. Heineken cans have some good contours to 'em, if one wants shims with some degree of convex/concave curvature. As for smoking while riding, I suppose some folks will try it, but eventually the effects of tongue-burn and smoke-eye (or worse yet -- ash-eye or ember-eye) will dissuade them. I can easily guise myself as something like the riders you describe (and I often do,) what with my ugly bike with it's fenders & milk crate & toeclip covers made from pieces of inner-tube. When I do so, am I a cyclist, or just a "cyclist"? What exactly /does/ the word: "cyclist" mean anyways, apart from the legal lingo in traffic laws? At any rate, I'm perfectly happy to simply be a bike ridER rather than a bicyclIST, same as anyone else who has gravitated to their own personal style of riding bicycles. AFAICT, it's the *ers who do the doing; it's the *ists who stand around, just thinking' & talkin' about doing, and perhaps buying stuff (like helmets, for example) to look the part, instead of developing their quads 'n calves 'n lungs 'n survival sts. (I guess *eer, as in engin[eer] is an incrementation of *er, kinda like C++) I infer from your post that you believe bicycle riders' legitimacies as bicycle riders depends on possession and use of bicycle helmets, and perhaps other garb, accoutrements and mammon-begotten stuff. I don't think so. Those folks on cheap bikes, grinding their ways to work while dressed in their jack-shirts and work gloves and hard hats, and no "official", safety-agency-approved helmet, are your fellow riders. /Anybody/ riding a bicycle is your fellow rider. Maybe not your fellow "cyclist" (Whatever the heck that means,) but your fellow rider. And that person deserves at least acknowledgment & recognition, if not respect, as such. You don't have to like the guy and take him home to dinner; just please at least cut 'im some slack, and don't put him down as inferior. Cutting slack for people is good. I like to do so, 'cuz I like people. And sometimes I need a li'l slack cut for me ;-) cheers, (I forgot my name. Oh, well ...) -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca       Date: 11 Jun 2006 20:58:27 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats): >In article <beMfg.759$Bd4.709@fe06.lga>, > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> writes: > >> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast >> and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" >> who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a >> cigarette dangling between their lips). > >Nobody balances a case of beer on their handlebar. That's too >inviting of disaster. Better to nestle it under one arm like a >hen guarding her brood, or a cyclist-surfer taking his/her board >to the beach. Like the old guy on one of the photos in the following collage. http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/images/faenza.jpg Or perhaps like an umbrella: http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/images/pict2898.jpg (both taken from http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/index.html) [...] >I infer from your post that you believe bicycle riders' legitimacies >as bicycle riders depends on possession and use of bicycle helmets, >and perhaps other garb, accoutrements and mammon-begotten stuff. > >I don't think so. Neither do I. I see bicylcing as an inexpensive mode of transport, a healty activity and a enjoyable excercise, achievable to almost erverybody. On the other hand, as a long term all day, all year utility cyclist, I reserve the right to be somewhat contemptous about those gimmicks some people seem to need, in order to handle a tools as simple and ubiquituous as a bicycle. :-) -- Thank you for observing all safety precautions       Date: 05 Jun 2006 19:20:09 From: David Damerell Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Quoting Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com >: >As for smoking while riding, I suppose some folks will try it, but >eventually the effects of tongue-burn and smoke-eye (or worse yet -- >ash-eye or ember-eye) will dissuade them. Maybe a hookah mounted to the rear is the answer. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > flcl? Today is Sunday, June - a weekend.       Date: 03 Jun 2006 04:46:13 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:35:10 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >As for smoking while riding, I suppose some folks will try it, but >eventually the effects of tongue-burn and smoke-eye (or worse yet -- >ash-eye or ember-eye) will dissuade them. I see guys doing it regularly. [stuff snipped] >Cutting slack for people is good. I like to do so, 'cuz I like >people. And sometimes I need a li'l slack cut for me ;-) Ditto. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************     Date: 01 Jun 2006 19:00:07 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1149208183.277795.256260@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > > > > But overall, the average person _must_ differ with your opinion. How > > do we know? Because - once again - people have to be told, over and > > over, to wear the things. Otherwise they correctly choose not to. > > Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast > and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" > who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a > cigarette dangling between their lips). :-) There you go! Perfect! The cyclist you see all wear helmets. Except the ones that don't wear helmets, and they don't count, because if they don't wear a helmet, they aren't really cyclists! FWIW, this is one of the reasons that people conducting surveys need training - to remove the effects of circular reasoning. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 02 Jun 2006 05:48:11 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > GaryG wrote: >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1149208183.277795.256260@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> But overall, the average person _must_ differ with your opinion. >>> How do we know? Because - once again - people have to be told, >>> over and over, to wear the things. Otherwise they correctly choose >>> not to. >> >> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west >> coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for >> the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer >> on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips). > > :-) There you go! Perfect! > > The cyclist you see all wear helmets. Except the ones that don't wear > helmets, and they don't count, because if they don't wear a helmet, > they aren't really cyclists! > > FWIW, this is one of the reasons that people conducting surveys need > training - to remove the effects of circular reasoning. Frank, who puts down illiterate waitresses as having no value (or certainly less than his own), suddenly aligns himself with the beer-toting butt-toking DUI wrong way riders on sidewalks! What a man of the people! LOL         Date: 02 Jun 2006 12:28:41 From: H M Leary Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <viQfg.550$Ah.460@tornado.socal.rr.com >, "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote: SNIP > Frank, who puts down illiterate waitresses as having no value (or certainly > less than his own), suddenly aligns himself with the beer-toting butt-toking > DUI wrong way riders on sidewalks! What a man of the people! LOL Best response yet,Sorni!! HAND Ride a Bike ..or get bent     Date: 01 Jun 2006 18:55:30 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > GaryG wrote:<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > >> > >> > >> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree > >> of risk of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial > >> arts, American football and baseball, etc.). > > > But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar > > degrees of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by far > > the greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in America - > > DESPITE seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly half such > > deaths; cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this great burden on > > America's health care system somehow doesn't warrant the obvious > > remedy. > > Which is /what/, Frank? Helmets in cars? I thought helmets are of no use > whatsoever in preventing fatal head injuries?!? (Gosh this gets confusing.) I'm not surprised you find it confusing, Sorni. I'll try to help. Bike helmets are severely limited by the need to be very light, well ventilated, provide some protection over the entire "scalp" surface, and be fairly inexpensive (i.e. they can't cost as much as the vehicle). Car helmets don't need the same ventilation, since the person isn't exerting himself and probably has air conditioning. The ones that have been proposed (and yes, they have been seriously proposed) don't cover the entire scalp; they are just bands around the forehead. This works inside a car because the dynamics of the body colliding with the car's insides are much more controlled, due to seatbelts. Weight isn't such a problem, since the neck isn't so cantilevered. Storage isn't a problem, as it can be for cyclists doing dual-mode commutes - just lock the helmet in the car. Also, car helmets may not have to deal with such a severe impact. They're just for the secondary impact of the seat belted, air bagged occupant with the inside of the car. All in all, a car helmet can have a hard shell, thicker styrofoam, yet (because of reduced need for vertical protection) still have fairly light weight. It can offer some real protection. Want to learn more? Oh, sorry - of course you don't! ;-) But those that do can check out: McLean A.J., Fildes B.N., Kloeden C.J., Digges K.H., Anderson R.W.G., Moore V.M. & Simpson D.A., Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options, Federal Office of Road Safety - Report CR 160, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research Centre - Frank Krygowski       Date: 02 Jun 2006 05:43:24 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Sorni wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> GaryG wrote:<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >>>> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a >>>> degree of risk of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, >>>> tial arts, American football and baseball, etc.). >> >>> But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar >>> degrees of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by >>> far the greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in >>> America - DESPITE seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly >>> half such deaths; cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this >>> great burden on America's health care system somehow doesn't >>> warrant the obvious remedy. >> >> Which is /what/, Frank? Helmets in cars? I thought helmets are of >> no use whatsoever in preventing fatal head injuries?!? (Gosh this >> gets confusing.) > > I'm not surprised you find it confusing, Sorni. I'll try to help. > > Bike helmets are severely limited by the need to be very light, well > ventilated, provide some protection over the entire "scalp" surface, > and be fairly inexpensive (i.e. they can't cost as much as the > vehicle). > > Car helmets don't need the same ventilation, since the person isn't > exerting himself and probably has air conditioning. The ones that > have been proposed (and yes, they have been seriously proposed) don't > cover the entire scalp; they are just bands around the forehead. > This works inside a car because the dynamics of the body colliding > with the car's insides are much more controlled, due to seatbelts. > Weight isn't such a problem, since the neck isn't so cantilevered. > Storage isn't a problem, as it can be for cyclists doing dual-mode > commutes - just lock the helmet in the car. Also, car helmets may > not have to deal with such a severe impact. They're just for the > secondary impact of the seat belted, air bagged occupant with the > inside of the car. > > All in all, a car helmet can have a hard shell, thicker styrofoam, yet > (because of reduced need for vertical protection) still have fairly > light weight. It can offer some real protection. > > Want to learn more? Oh, sorry - of course you don't! ;-) > > But those that do can check out: > > McLean A.J., Fildes B.N., Kloeden C.J., Digges K.H., Anderson R.W.G., > Moore V.M. & Simpson D.A., Prevention of head injuries to car > occupants: an investigation of interior padding options, Federal > Office of Road Safety - Report CR 160, NHMRC Road Accident Research > Unit, University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research > Centre And in showers? Walking? (Thanks for the insults, BTW. You just can't help yourself.)     Date: 01 Jun 2006 18:05:36 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Green <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk> writes: > > > > > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't > > appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. > > > > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? > > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and > that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as > the sun goes down. :-) Ah! It's a religious thing, then - anyone who questions the Received Dogma of Thompson & Rivara is an Enemy of the Church of Styrofoam! Especially anyone bringing in the Sin of Data! They shall be pelted with stones until dead! And they shall NOT be allowed to wear the Sacred Styrofoam Hats while pelted, because... um, well, because they'd die with the hats on, and we can't have the faithful seeing any imperfection in the Sacred Styrofoam Hats! ;-) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:40:19 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > GaryG wrote: > > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > news:h%ffg.24289$43.12352@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > > > > > The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more > > > dangerous. > > > > > Were that the case, American lawyers would be lining up to sue the > > manufacturers (they do for every other thing, real or imagined). That they > > are not leads me (and most others) to conclude that there is no evidence to > > support your contention. Careful. What you really mean is "no evidence you're aware of," or perhaps "no evidence lawyers are yet aware of." I'll note, however, that the findings are still somewhat new. And that helmet manufacturers are doing a wonderful job of double-speak by proxy. They donate money to organizations (like Safe Kids, etc.) that promote helmet use and lobby for helmet laws based on the absurd "85%" claim; yet they put stickers inside every helmet that say, in effect, "This thing is probably useless." You can be sure they have well-paid teams of lawyers guarding the store. > Bingo! If nothing else proves the "helmets increase risk" lie is pure > BS, the lack of litigation surely does so. If there were even a sliver > of fact to it, the ambulance chasers would be all over it like flies on > shit. Man, I hope not all people in the Ozarks blab so much about excrement! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:29:43 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > > I guess my experience with them is different than yours. > > Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head). > > Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps > and pads and they're good to go. > > Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-). > > Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. Even > on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very > slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem). > > As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack > of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet. Or, alternately, you're basing a lot on your personal taste, not imagining that conditions and value judgements can be very different for other individuals. As an illustration, back when I wore a helmet regularly, it was obvious that the thermal discomfort varied with location. In the sunny, arid west of America, it was less of a problem. Sweat evaporated rapidly, keeping the sun off my head probably helped cooling, and most paved roads are less then 5% grade, so ventilation was helped by relative air speed. In hot, humid, sunny Florida, I found things to be different. Riding 18 mph with bright sun pounding down was hot with the helmet and hot without the helmet. I sweated lots either way, but at least it was easier to keep it out of my eyes without the helmet. In Pennsylvania's Appalachians and their foothills, it's a whole different ball game. More cloud cover means shading the scalp has less value. Grades over 10% mean slow climbing with little airflow. Humidity means the sweat pads quickly soak full, then deliver stinging bucketsful to your eyes on the short, fast downhill. It's similar with the other issues, like "carry it around," "mess up hair," and "keeping it clean," and "expense of helmet" and all the rest. But overall, the average person _must_ differ with your opinion. How do we know? Because - once again - people have to be told, over and over, to wear the things. Otherwise they correctly choose not to. Only when they receive the handwringing stories, the false promises, the ride regulations, the continuous urging and the peer pressure do they start to wear the odd-looking contraptions. > > Wearing a strong helmet in a car will > > also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear > > one? > > Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air > bags). Which, all together, get the risk of serious head injury inside a car down to roughly the same level as a bike! For those who somehow feel 0.17 head fatalities per million hours is suitably low inside a car, but 0.19 HI fatalities per million hours is way too high on a bike*, I'm curious about the following: What would you do in this situation? My daughter was ried last summer. A good friend loaned us a perfect, classic 1960 Buick show car as the wedding couple's transportation. No air bags. No seat belts. No anti-lock brakes. No side impact door beams. No crumple zones. No padding on the dash, IIRC. Just clear vinyl seat covers, and lots of hard chrome. Should the bride and groom and Best Man and Maid of Honor have strapped on some sort of helmet? Or should they have said "No thanks, we'll just ride to the reception in something much, much more safe"? - Frank Krygowski * Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475       Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:52:18 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1149208183.277795.256260@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > > GaryG wrote: > > > > > > I guess my experience with them is different than yours. > > > > Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head). > > > > Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps > > and pads and they're good to go. > > > > Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-). > > > > Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. Even > > on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very > > slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem). > > > > As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack > > of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet. > > Or, alternately, you're basing a lot on your personal taste, not > imagining that conditions and value judgements can be very different > for other individuals. Or, you could be too... > > As an illustration, back when I wore a helmet regularly, it was obvious > that the thermal discomfort varied with location. In the sunny, arid > west of America, it was less of a problem. Sweat evaporated rapidly, > keeping the sun off my head probably helped cooling, and most paved > roads are less then 5% grade, so ventilation was helped by relative air > speed. > > In hot, humid, sunny Florida, I found things to be different. Riding > 18 mph with bright sun pounding down was hot with the helmet and hot > without the helmet. I sweated lots either way, but at least it was > easier to keep it out of my eyes without the helmet. > > In Pennsylvania's Appalachians and their foothills, it's a whole > different ball game. More cloud cover means shading the scalp has less > value. Grades over 10% mean slow climbing with little airflow. > Humidity means the sweat pads quickly soak full, then deliver stinging > bucketsful to your eyes on the short, fast downhill. > > It's similar with the other issues, like "carry it around," "mess up > hair," and "keeping it clean," and "expense of helmet" and all the > rest. > > But overall, the average person _must_ differ with your opinion. How > do we know? Because - once again - people have to be told, over and > over, to wear the things. Otherwise they correctly choose not to. Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips). GG > Only when they receive the handwringing stories, the false promises, > the ride regulations, the continuous urging and the peer pressure do > they start to wear the odd-looking contraptions. > > > > Wearing a strong helmet in a car will > > > also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear > > > one? > > > > Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air > > bags). > > Which, all together, get the risk of serious head injury inside a car > down to roughly the same level as a bike! > > > For those who somehow feel 0.17 head fatalities per million hours is > suitably low inside a car, but 0.19 HI fatalities per million hours is > way too high on a bike*, I'm curious about the following: What would > you do in this situation? > > My daughter was ried last summer. A good friend loaned us a > perfect, classic 1960 Buick show car as the wedding couple's > transportation. > > No air bags. No seat belts. No anti-lock brakes. No side impact door > beams. No crumple zones. No padding on the dash, IIRC. Just clear > vinyl seat covers, and lots of hard chrome. > > Should the bride and groom and Best Man and Maid of Honor have strapped > on some sort of helmet? Or should they have said "No thanks, we'll > just ride to the reception in something much, much more safe"? > > - Frank Krygowski > > > * Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident > Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475 >         Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:13:21 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast > and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" > who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a > cigarette dangling between their lips). > And their head injury rate is over twice as high as here in the UK where about 20% wear helmets and six times higher than the Netherlands where virtually no-one wears a helmet. And that despite the population and traffic density of the UK and Netherlands being 8 and 13 times higher than the US. Go figure. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci           Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:19:56 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > GaryG wrote: >> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west >> coast >> and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" >> who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a >> cigarette dangling between their lips). >> > > And their head injury rate is over twice as high as here in the UK > where about 20% wear helmets and six times higher than the Netherlands > where virtually no-one wears a helmet. And that despite the > population and traffic density of the UK and Netherlands being 8 and > 13 times higher than the US. Go figure. This rate is relevant to number of cyclists is it? Noone rides bikes in the UK. In the netherlands they have flat cycle paths everywhere and everyone cycles.             Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:45:40 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > Noone rides bikes in the UK. In the netherlands they have flat cycle > paths everywhere and everyone cycles. Never missing an opportunity to be wrong eh? In London, cycling is around 20% of journeys now and well into double percentage figures in many UK cities. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci             Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:35:42 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Noone rides bikes in the UK. I saw several of these non-existent people this morning. Cycle use has been booming in London since the congestion charge was introduced. Last I heard London was part of the UK... > In the netherlands they have flat cycle > paths everywhere and everyone cycles. The perception of fietspads being /everywhere/ is actually false: there are plenty of places in NL where cyclists and motorists share road space. But why let mere facts get in the way of a good argument? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:46:42 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Noone rides bikes in the UK. > > I saw several of these non-existent people this morning. Cycle use > has been booming in London since the congestion charge was introduced. > Last I heard London was part of the UK... > >> In the netherlands they have flat cycle >> paths everywhere and everyone cycles. > > The perception of fietspads being /everywhere/ is actually false: > there are plenty of places in NL where cyclists and motorists share > road space. > > But why let mere facts get in the way of a good argument? Your inability to except a generalization is almost laughable. So you dont agree that cycling facilities and terrain in Hollad are better and flatter than most other places? As a %, you disagree that in germany, holland etc a lot more cycle than in the UK? Come off it : you sound ridiculous.                 Date: 11 Jun 2006 20:38:48 From: Wolfgang Strobl Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com >: >So you dont agree that cycling facilities and terrain in Hollad are >better and flatter than most other places? The terrain in Holland may be better, but the cycling facitlities - mandatory bike paths, that is - are worse than everywhere else in Europe. You're confusing cause and effect. Large numbers of cyclists both enhance the overall traffic safety _and_ cause a desire and tendency to restrict their free access to the roads. Large numbers of cyclists may be caused by the flat terrain or the short distances (the Netherlands have almost twice the population density of Germany, about an order of magnitude more than those of the US), or both. >As a %, you disagree that in germany, holland etc a lot more cycle than >in the UK? > >Come off it : you sound ridiculous. See above. -- Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen                 Date: 02 Jun 2006 10:03:15 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:46:42 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> Hadron Quark wrote: >> >>> Noone rides bikes in the UK. >> >> I saw several of these non-existent people this morning. Cycle use >> has been booming in London since the congestion charge was introduced. >> Last I heard London was part of the UK... >> >>> In the netherlands they have flat cycle >>> paths everywhere and everyone cycles. >> >> The perception of fietspads being /everywhere/ is actually false: >> there are plenty of places in NL where cyclists and motorists share >> road space. >> >> But why let mere facts get in the way of a good argument? > >Your inability to except a generalization is almost laughable. > >So you dont agree that cycling facilities and terrain in Hollad are >better and flatter than most other places? > >As a %, you disagree that in germany, holland etc a lot more cycle than >in the UK? > >Come off it : you sound ridiculous. Dear Hadron, Er, I think that subtle clues in Gary G.'s post hint that he refers to the western United States: "Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips)." ["west coast," "mountain west," "Wally-World"] If "no one" cycles in the UK, then the American West (where we devoutly believe that the UK is a crowded bicycle paradise) must involve the intriguing notion of negative California ridership. Not to make anyone sound ridiculous. Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 02 Jun 2006 11:00:26 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > > As a %, you disagree that in germany, holland etc a lot more cycle than > in the UK? > Yes the percentage is greater and do you think that is anything to do with it being seen as a normal safe activity that virtually no-one thinks requires the protection of a helmet. In the days when I used to wear a helmet and my daughters stayed with Dutch families on a school exchange, the Dutch parents couldn't understand why on earth we thought our children needed the protection of a helmet to go cycling. Here in the UK many parents think anyone that lets their child cycle is irresponsibly endangering their child, criminally so if they cycle without a helmet. And you wonder why more Dutch cycle. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci         Date: 01 Jun 2006 21:32:54 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:52:18 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote: >Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast >and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists" >who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a >cigarette dangling between their lips). Could you clarify this? Of all people you see riding bikes -- regardless of what they ride/smoke/etc -- do the vast majority wear helmets? If so, that's interesting. Where I live -- New York City -- it's not clear to me what the situation is. I can't easily get a fix on it -- I'd guess it's abut half but I could be way off -- it could easily be as little as a quarter wear helmets. Or it might be a bit more than half. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************           Date: 02 Jun 2006 01:49:45 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:52:18 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > wrote: > >> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west >> coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for >> the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer >> on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips). > > Could you clarify this? Of all people you see riding bikes -- > regardless of what they ride/smoke/etc -- do the vast majority wear > helmets? If so, that's interesting. > > Where I live -- New York City -- it's not clear to me what the > situation is. I can't easily get a fix on it -- I'd guess it's abut > half but I could be way off -- it could easily be as little as a > quarter wear helmets. Or it might be a bit more than half. Gary's comment sure rings true for Southern California. (In fact, I think I wrote something quite similar a few days ago.) Other than people on "comfort" bikes riding the wrong way on sidewalks, the vast majority of cyclists I see are helmeted. I'd say at least 80% on the road; close to 100% off-road. It's still quite unusual to see someone on a true "road bike" without a helmet. (Once every...two weeks maybe.) BS (no, really)             Date: 02 Jun 2006 06:32:50 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:49:45 GMT, "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote: >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:52:18 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west >>> coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for >>> the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer >>> on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips). >> >> Could you clarify this? Of all people you see riding bikes -- >> regardless of what they ride/smoke/etc -- do the vast majority wear >> helmets? If so, that's interesting. >> >> Where I live -- New York City -- it's not clear to me what the >> situation is. I can't easily get a fix on it -- I'd guess it's abut >> half but I could be way off -- it could easily be as little as a >> quarter wear helmets. Or it might be a bit more than half. > >Gary's comment sure rings true for Southern California. (In fact, I think I >wrote something quite similar a few days ago.) > >Other than people on "comfort" bikes riding the wrong way on sidewalks, the >vast majority of cyclists I see are helmeted. I'd say at least 80% on the >road; close to 100% off-road. It's noteworthy that in your "vast majority" comments both you and Gary choose to exclude certain cyclists. >It's still quite unusual to see someone on a true "road bike" without a >helmet. (Once every...two weeks maybe.) This suggests to me that at least part of wearing a helmet is from believing it's what serious cyclists wear. Which reminds me -- you never answered the question about what you would do if you had a nice place to ride and no helmet available. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************             Date: 02 Jun 2006 02:42:24 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:ZOMfg.9452$9W5.74@tornado.socal.rr.com... > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:52:18 -0700, "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west > >> coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for > >> the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer > >> on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips). > > > > Could you clarify this? Of all people you see riding bikes -- > > regardless of what they ride/smoke/etc -- do the vast majority wear > > helmets? If so, that's interesting. > > > > Where I live -- New York City -- it's not clear to me what the > > situation is. I can't easily get a fix on it -- I'd guess it's abut > > half but I could be way off -- it could easily be as little as a > > quarter wear helmets. Or it might be a bit more than half. > > Gary's comment sure rings true for Southern California. (In fact, I think I > wrote something quite similar a few days ago.) > > Other than people on "comfort" bikes riding the wrong way on sidewalks, the > vast majority of cyclists I see are helmeted. I'd say at least 80% on the > road; close to 100% off-road. > > It's still quite unusual to see someone on a true "road bike" without a > helmet. (Once every...two weeks maybe.) I'd say around the SF peninsula, about 90% of the people wearing lycra and riding road bikes for recreation or sport wear helmets. About 15% of the adults wearing regular clothes and riding bikes to get to work or for errands wear helmets. (I don't see the mountain bikers on trails, so I don't know if they are wearing helmets or not.) 90% of the kids have helmets on their heads no matter where they are going. 25% of the kids have them strapped on and seated properly so they would be somewhat effective.               Date: 02 Jun 2006 06:35:10 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:42:24 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: >I'd say around the SF peninsula, about 90% of the people wearing lycra and >riding road bikes for recreation or sport wear helmets. About 15% of the >adults wearing regular clothes and riding bikes to get to work or for >errands wear helmets. Yeah, it's vaguely like this in NYC. But hard to know how much of each sort of cyclist there are. And in the working cyclist group (people riding as part of their job) it's about zero of food delivery people wear helmets, and around half of messengers do. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************     Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:04:10 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote:<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message > > > Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk > of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial arts, American > football and baseball, etc.). But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar degrees of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by far the greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in America - DESPITE seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly half such deaths; cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this great burden on America's health care system somehow doesn't warrant the obvious remedy. (BTW, it's not a "per hour" thing either. The risk of fatal head injury per hour is roughly similar on a bike or in a car, and both are infinitesmal.) In truth, people's judgement on this matter is shaped much more by fashion and well-cultivated beliefs than by actual facts. Before Bell began aggressively keting the Bell Biker (in the 1970s, to capitalize on the recent surge in adult cycling) nobody associated cycling with head injury. Look at books, magazines, or other cycling information before 1975 to see. First came the product, the opportunity for Bell to branch out and make more money. Then came the massive promotion campaigns, including the funds provided to earnest lobbyists like Safe Kids Inc. Then came the "common sense" judgements. Now - only now - are we getting data that shows how false the promotions are. > For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is > pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their > ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational > folks. I'm curious where you get those ideas! "Most people" do NOT choose helmets to bicycle, unless (and until) they are subject to keting, rules, laws, peer pressure or other influences. Normal people simply do not see cycling as being a special head injury danger - and they are correct. This is very obviously true if you take a trip either to Europe or to Asia - places where bike use is much higher, per person, than the USA, and where keting efforts are several years behind the American hyper-safety, consumer-product frenzy. It's even true in the US, once you get past the idea that only a person wearing "full mating plumage" counts as a cyclist. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 02 Jun 2006 00:34:15 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > GaryG wrote:<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message >> >> >> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree >> of risk of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, tial >> arts, American football and baseball, etc.). > But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar > degrees of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by far > the greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in America - > DESPITE seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly half such > deaths; cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this great burden on > America's health care system somehow doesn't warrant the obvious > remedy. Which is /what/, Frank? Helmets in cars? I thought helmets are of no use whatsoever in preventing fatal head injuries?!? (Gosh this gets confusing.) BTW, how many drivers just get "road rash" from a car crash? (You know, the kind of thing a helmet CAN prevent in certain types of bike falls.)     Date: 01 Jun 2006 08:21:43 From: David Martin Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Green <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk> writes: > > > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only > > zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem > > determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to > > or not. > > Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most > are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits > of helmet wearing for cyclists. Umm.. how about the posts pointing out that increased helmet wearing may lead to an MHL in UK. Or did you mean effect? > > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't > > appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. > > > > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? > > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and > that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as > the sun goes down. And you have the data to show that they are incorrect? or just wild unsubstantiated assumption? I think it is actually anti-(Helmet Zealot) rather than (Anti Helmet) Zealot. ..d     Date: 31 May 2006 15:14:35 From: dkahn400 Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Michael Press wrote: > "dkahn400" <dkahn400@googlemail.com> wrote: > > What seems dubious? That the Earth seems flat, or that some people > > still believe it? People believe in all kinds of ridiculous things > > including alien abduction and the faking by Nasa of the moon landings. > > How to distinguish between those who believe the Earth is > flat and those who only profess to believe that the Earth > is flat? I never met or heard from one of the former. How indeed? I have the same difficulty with a creationist I sometimes cross swords with on a listserver. He says the Earth is around 6,000 years old. He appears sincere, and it's possible he really does believe it, but I'm not convinced he isn't just attracted to the glamour of taking an extreme position. -- Dave...     Date: 31 May 2006 08:57:52 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > >>> Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off. > > > > > > "I pride myself on being a perfectly pompous ass" - Tony Raven > > > > Yep, Rousseau was right. > > So was Raven, just for once. ;-)       Date: 31 May 2006 17:16:09 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off. >>> >>> "I pride myself on being a perfectly pompous ass" - Tony Raven >>> >> Yep, Rousseau was right. >> >> > > So was Raven, just for once. ;-) > "Raven" just for once being a pseudonym used by Ozark Bicycle - or do you claim you didn't write that sentence. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci     Date: 31 May 2006 08:12:56 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > Thank you. I was just wondering. And wondering why you are so obsessed > > with "identities". > > > > Since there is no peer review process on the web, it's important for > assessing the weight to give to any particular individual's views. You > can easily see that myself, Peter and John are all well qualified to > speak on cycling and/or evaluation of research evidence. For all I > know, Sorni could be an elementary school drop out who cleans toilets > for a living. If on the other hand he had a background like JFT's I > would pay much closer attention to his viewpoint > > > Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off. > Snipping to remove context is your foremost talent, eh? > See my sig > >"I pride myself on being a perfectly pompous ass" - Tony Raven       Date: 31 May 2006 16:40:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>> Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off. > > > "I pride myself on being a perfectly pompous ass" - Tony Raven > Yep, Rousseau was right. -- Tony “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau     Date: 31 May 2006 07:41:15 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > And how real is "Tony Raven"? How real is that email addy? Does anyone > > know? > > > > Feel free to Google me or Peter Clinch or JFT - we've either gone to > elaborate lengths to create false web identities or we're real - and you > can see whether we are qualified to comment on helmet research, cycling, > medical matters etc. You can even see me wearing a helmet from the days > when I "believed" in them. > Thank you. I was just wondering. And wondering why you are so obsessed with "identities". > Where as you, Sorni, Pirrero and the rest are virtually invisible as to > your credentials. I know you'll fix my derailleur real cheap but beyond > that, zip. > > My name/identity/contact information is readily found. The proof lies in the fact that even an idiot like you can find it. As to "credentials", any potential customer of mine is free to ask for references. Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off.       Date: 31 May 2006 15:53:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Thank you. I was just wondering. And wondering why you are so obsessed > with "identities". > Since there is no peer review process on the web, it's important for assessing the weight to give to any particular individual's views. You can easily see that myself, Peter and John are all well qualified to speak on cycling and/or evaluation of research evidence. For all I know, Sorni could be an elementary school drop out who cleans toilets for a living. If on the other hand he had a background like JFT's I would pay much closer attention to his viewpoint > Beyond that, feel free to just fuck off. See my sig -- Tony “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau     Date: 31 May 2006 06:46:47 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:h%ffg.24289$43.12352@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > > > "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message > > news:rcafg.261$im3.233@fe02.lga... > > > > > As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth > > preventing"...I > > > disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to > wear > > a > > > risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical > > piece > > > of my cycling kit). > > > > > > > How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"? > > > > The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more > > dangerous. > > > > Were that the case, American lawyers would be lining up to sue the > manufacturers (they do for every other thing, real or imagined). That they > are not leads me (and most others) to conclude that there is no evidence to > support your contention. > Bingo! If nothing else proves the "helmets increase risk" lie is pure BS, the lack of litigation surely does so. If there were even a sliver of fact to it, the ambulance chasers would be all over it like flies on shit.     Date: 31 May 2006 06:37:08 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > > > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > >> Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know. > >> > > > > Sorni is kind of close to Bill Sorenson, Ozark Bicycle is nothing like > > Richard Malesweski. Who Strange Quark is is anyone's guess as he's > > only been around for a month. > > Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who > I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything. The > old "we've been posting for longer than you so we must be right" is > really one of the weakest defences/attacks in the history of > usenet. Imagine if Mike Tyson concurred when he climbed into the ring > with Michael Spinks? Oh, he's been boxing longer so he must be > right/better ... > > Incidentally, my email address is real. And how real is "Tony Raven"? How real is that email addy? Does anyone know?       Date: 31 May 2006 14:55:33 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > And how real is "Tony Raven"? How real is that email addy? Does anyone > know? > Feel free to Google me or Peter Clinch or JFT - we've either gone to elaborate lengths to create false web identities or we're real - and you can see whether we are qualified to comment on helmet research, cycling, medical matters etc. You can even see me wearing a helmet from the days when I "believed" in them. Where as you, Sorni, Pirrero and the rest are virtually invisible as to your credentials. I know you'll fix my derailleur real cheap but beyond that, zip. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci     Date: 31 May 2006 02:22:51 From: dkahn400 Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Kevan Smith wrote: > In article <1qKdnfAJKr6VXeHZRVnytg@bt.com>, > Richard <richard@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > > There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see > > is flatness. > > That seems dubious. What seems dubious? That the Earth seems flat, or that some people still believe it? People believe in all kinds of ridiculous things including alien abduction and the faking by Nasa of the moon landings. -- Dave...       Date: From: Subject:     Date: 30 May 2006 15:40:00 From: David Martin Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Ring me up when stateside, boyo. This reminds me of a friend. She went to college in the US and was invited to go skiing. 'we ski a lot and are quite good' said her hosts. "Do you ski much?' 'I can ski but I am not particularly good' was the reply. So off they went to some resort or other just up the road. Off down the black run. So my friend takes it quite casual and gentle, enjoying the run down without pushing it at all. Then turns round to see her hosts slowly picking their way down. "I thought you said you wern't particularly good?' they said when they got to the bottom. "Not by Norwegian standards I'm not" was the reply. ..d       Date: 30 May 2006 18:32:31 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 15:40:00 -0700, "David tin" <tin-family@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote: > >Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> Ring me up when stateside, boyo. > >This reminds me of a friend. She went to college in the US and was >invited to go skiing. 'we ski a lot and are quite good' said her hosts. >"Do you ski much?' 'I can ski but I am not particularly good' was the >reply. > >So off they went to some resort or other just up the road. Off down the >black run. So my friend takes it quite casual and gentle, enjoying the >run down without pushing it at all. Then turns round to see her hosts >slowly picking their way down. "I thought you said you wern't >particularly good?' they said when they got to the bottom. "Not by >Norwegian standards I'm not" was the reply. > >..d Dear David, Back in the early '70's, a lot of really, really hateful UK observed trials riders would craftily combine vacations with expense accounts and fly out to Colorado to stomp the bejesus out of the best riders in the Rocky Mountain Trials Association. (We suspected that the UK riders got the idea from the Californians, who also enjoyed coming out to Colorado and doing much the same thing to us.) (We did it once to the New Mexican Trials Association.) I remember earnestly asking Rob Edwards (a Yorkshire farmer, I think) whether he meant to use the low line or the high line up a nasty rocky creek section. I figured that Edwards would reveal some subtle secret that would explain why going on top of the rocks or down in between them was better in general. "Oh, the high line, of course," Edwards said, looking surprised at my foolish question, and walked back down to his machine to demonstrate the point. I stood in front of a convenient waist-high rock that gave me a perfect view of where the UK expert was going to come up the gully. Boy, I thought as Edwards came charging up the rocks, he's going way too fast-- "Get out of the way!" His idea of the high line turned out to be the impossible rock I was standing in front of. He went right up it, clean as a whistle. I've been suspicious of you guys ever since then. Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 30 May 2006 13:23:56 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John B wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > John B wrote: > > > > > > > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. > > > > > > > > Ring me up when stateside, boyo. > > > > > > Will do. You'll find my training charges very reasonable. > > > > > No need to bring children in diapers, however precocious and sweet > > tempered. > > its no worry. They don't mind at all. > They will be only too pleased to teach you the basics. > > And you get to wipe their cheeks. Seems a warm arrangement. Just wash off before the ride.     Date: 30 May 2006 20:54:39 From: John B Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > John B wrote: > > > > > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. > > > > > > Ring me up when stateside, boyo. > > > > Will do. You'll find my training charges very reasonable. > > > No need to bring children in diapers, however precocious and sweet > tempered. its no worry. They don't mind at all. They will be only too pleased to teach you the basics. John B     Date: 30 May 2006 12:31:00 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John B wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > John B wrote: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > John B wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be > > > > > your ultimate undoing. > > > > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. > > > > > > > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew. > > > > > > That's one way to alleviate the pain. > > > > > > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. > > > > Ring me up when stateside, boyo. > > Will do. You'll find my training charges very reasonable. > > No need to bring children in diapers, however precocious and sweet tempered.     Date: 30 May 2006 20:16:05 From: John B Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > John B wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > John B wrote: > > > > > > > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be > > > > your ultimate undoing. > > > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. > > > > > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew. > > > > That's one way to alleviate the pain. > > > > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. > > Ring me up when stateside, boyo. Will do. You'll find my training charges very reasonable. John B     Date: 30 May 2006 12:04:24 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > jtaylor wrote: > > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in > > message news:1149005557.914731.196010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> MSeries wrote: > >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>>> MSeries wrote: > >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as > >>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, > >>>>>> I've been walking alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have > >>>>>> never struck my head in a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy > >>>>>> winter conditions for over 40 years. Never hit my head in a fall > >>>>>> (or even fell) in the shower, either. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> What is your point ? > >>>> > >>>> If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. > >>>> > >>>> Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so > >>>> cleverly snipped out. > > >>> Oooh, having a bad day ? > >> > >> > >> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. > > > > Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the > > insult. Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you > > are correct. > > And yet you give a pass to MSeries' insulting and childish tactics. Typical > double standard hypocrisy. (Hint: instead of addressing the point that > he'd snipped something pertinent to the argument, he made a snotty rek > which was met in kind. And you take the time to attack THAT. Classic.) Classic URC AHZ tactics, indeed.     Date: 30 May 2006 12:00:47 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John B wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > John B wrote: > > > > > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be > > > your ultimate undoing. > > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. > > > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew. > > That's one way to alleviate the pain. > > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. > Ring me up when stateside, boyo.     Date: 30 May 2006 19:30:55 From: John B Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > John B wrote: > > > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be > > your ultimate undoing. > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew. That's one way to alleviate the pain. Mine? Learn to ride skillfully. John B     Date: 30 May 2006 11:04:36 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John B wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > John B wrote: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > Funny thing, I've been walking > > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > > > either. > > > > > > > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling > > > > > > It seems you need some cycle-training. > > > You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike. > > > > > > > If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at > > least at the beginning. > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be > your ultimate undoing. > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew.     Date: 30 May 2006 18:24:30 From: John B Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > John B wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > Funny thing, I've been walking > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > > either. > > > > > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling > > > > It seems you need some cycle-training. > > You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike. > > > > If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at > least at the beginning. Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be your ultimate undoing. i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom. John B     Date: 30 May 2006 10:09:53 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John B wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Funny thing, I've been walking > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > either. > > > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling > > It seems you need some cycle-training. > You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike. > If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at least at the beginning.     Date: 30 May 2006 10:05:48 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Chris Malcolm wrote: > In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > > Peter Clinch wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> > >> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > >> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > >> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > >> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. > >> > >> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said > >> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other > >> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries > >> don't merit any such interventions. > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > either. > > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and > > once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced > > by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted. > > On the other hand in fifty years of cycling I've never even so much as > bumped my head once, whereas I've suffered minor head or brain > injuries fron slipping in the bath, falling down stairs, being > walloped by a handbag, tripping on a creased carpet in my parents' > sitting room, falling out of a tree, and falling off a cliff. > > > Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed > > to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering > > or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits > > pavement, I'm better off helmeted. > > On a bicycle. Whereas in my personal experience I'd have suffered a > lot less head and brain injury if I'd worn a helmet every time I > wasn't on a bicycle. > Your personal experience is different than mine. I suggest you follow your own personal experience. Is that a problem for you? > > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal > > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, > > sorry. > > No need to apologise. We all recognise that a person's personal > experience is very relevant to that person's personal decisions, > whereas it is of no relevance to scientific conclusions and general > advice to the general population. All that puzzles us is why you think > you're so special that your personal experience trumps the general > statistics and science that are generally recognised as relevant to > general advice to the general population. > Ah, to the heart of the matter! I'm not trying to convince anyone to wear a helmet. Or not to wear a helmet. You, and you fellow AHZs, OTOH, have a very discernable anti-helmet agenda. I place a good deal of weight in my personal experiences when making personal decisions. This tends to make me intolerant of the "why don't you wear a helmet whilst walking" type of drivel the comes from the AHZ corner of the world. <drivel snipped >       Date: 30 May 2006 21:07:27 From: Burt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1149008748.435195.129280@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > Your personal experience is different than mine. I suggest you follow > your own personal experience. Is that a problem for you? > > Ah, to the heart of the matter! I'm not trying to convince anyone to > wear a helmet. Or not to wear a helmet. You, and you fellow AHZs, OTOH, > have a very discernable anti-helmet agenda. > > I place a good deal of weight in my personal experiences when making > personal decisions. This tends to make me intolerant of the "why don't > you wear a helmet whilst walking" type of drivel the comes from the AHZ > corner of the world. > > > <drivel snipped> Sadly not, you still wrote the above. Why not save yourself time and trouble and not write it in the first place? >     Date: 30 May 2006 18:05:18 From: John B Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Funny thing, I've been walking > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > either. > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling It seems you need some cycle-training. You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike. John B     Date: 30 May 2006 09:55:03 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in > > "population statistics". > > > > You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a > > given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film > > or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad. > > > > You need to distinguish between subjective and objective data. Food and > films reviews are definitely in the subjective category. > You need to distinguish between personal, first hand experience and statistical mental maturbation (1). My personal experience in walking v. cycling tell *me* all I need to know regarding which activitity benefits from helmet use. (1)You can go get excited with some population statistics now. ;-)     Date: 30 May 2006 09:41:25 From: davek Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the insult. > Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you are correct. No-one asked him to cross-post his drivel to URC, but when he does he gets upset if anyone responds... Funny thing is, he'd be even more upset if no-one responded. d.     Date: 30 May 2006 09:12:38 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? MSeries wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > MSeries wrote: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > What is your point ? > > > > If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. > > > > Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly > > snipped out. > > Oooh, having a bad day ? Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.       Date: 30 May 2006 18:51:57 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the other hand deceptive. Deception and stupidity don't go together so well. But they are easy insults to sling, right? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************         Date: 30 May 2006 22:45:06 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. > > It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are > arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the > other hand deceptive. Deception and stupidity don't go together so > well. But they are easy insults to sling, right? Tell that to the Bush-bashers.       Date: 30 May 2006 13:31:51 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1149005557.914731.196010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > MSeries wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > MSeries wrote: > > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > > > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > > > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your point ? > > > > > > If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. > > > > > > Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly > > > snipped out. > > > > Oooh, having a bad day ? > > > Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. > Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the insult. Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you are correct.         Date: 30 May 2006 18:30:22 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in > message news:1149005557.914731.196010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> MSeries wrote: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> MSeries wrote: >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as >>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, >>>>>> I've been walking alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have >>>>>> never struck my head in a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy >>>>>> winter conditions for over 40 years. Never hit my head in a fall >>>>>> (or even fell) in the shower, either. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is your point ? >>>> >>>> If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. >>>> >>>> Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so >>>> cleverly snipped out. >>> Oooh, having a bad day ? >> >> >> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots. > Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the > insult. Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you > are correct. And yet you give a pass to MSeries' insulting and childish tactics. Typical double standard hypocrisy. (Hint: instead of addressing the point that he'd snipped something pertinent to the argument, he made a snotty rek which was met in kind. And you take the time to attack THAT. Classic.)     Date: 30 May 2006 09:00:26 From: MSeries Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > MSeries wrote: > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > > either. > > > > > > > What is your point ? > > If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. > > Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly > snipped out. Oooh, having a bad day ?     Date: 30 May 2006 08:56:47 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? MSeries wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > either. > > > > What is your point ? If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly snipped out.     Date: 30 May 2006 08:53:51 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? > > Showering, no, walking, yes. > > > Funny thing, I've been walking > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > > either. > > Tell that to all the people that make up the records. Oh, hang on, you > don't believe in population statistics because that's just /other > people/. I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in "population statistics". You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad. <remaining blather snipped >       Date: 31 May 2006 08:34:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in > "population statistics". > > You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a > given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film > or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad. But reviews are singular opinions, not population statistics. Furthermore, while my enjoyment of a film or meal is a subjective experience, getting killed or injured isn't. There are undoubtedly people in the world that have been in a train crash but not a car crash. According to your "logic", they are taking their safety best into account in future if they travel by car. While I realise human nature is such that people will probably do that, it means they have psychological issues or are innumerate, rather than they are safer. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 30 May 2006 17:44:04 From: David Hansen Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 08:53:51 -0700 someone who may be "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote this:- >I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in >"population statistics". That tells us quite a bit about you. ><remaining blather snipped> In other words you were unwilling or unable to answer it. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54       Date: 30 May 2006 17:27:24 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in > "population statistics". > > You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a > given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film > or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad. > You need to distinguish between subjective and objective data. Food and films reviews are definitely in the subjective category. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci         Date: 30 May 2006 13:41:32 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4e3a3eF1d3ph1U1@individual.net... > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in > > "population statistics". > > > > You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a > > given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film > > or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad. > > > > You need to distinguish between subjective and objective data. Food and > films reviews are definitely in the subjective category. > Well it seems he does know that they are different - it's just that he believes that fear trumps fact. I had a friend who used to say that lotteries were a tax on people who failed maths.     Date: 30 May 2006 08:51:53 From: MSeries Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > either. > What is your point ?     Date: 30 May 2006 08:40:49 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed > to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering > or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits > pavement, I'm better off helmeted. > I meant to write "I am *more* likely to be exposed to a potential head injury whilst cycling". This is what happens when a phone call interupts my train of thought. :(     Date: 30 May 2006 08:35:45 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. > > If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said > why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other > activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries > don't merit any such interventions. Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, either. OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted. Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits pavement, I'm better off helmeted. The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, sorry. > Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are > inconsistent. > No, it is not. Guess again.       Date: 01 Jun 2006 14:14:39 From: Tony Green Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, > sorry. Hmmm... Interesting turn of phrase. Are you so insecure in your opinion that you can only respond with abuse? -- Tony Green Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk * This has been a Microsoft-free message *       Date: 30 May 2006 18:49:31 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 08:35:45 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > >Peter Clinch wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. >> >> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said >> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other >> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries >> don't merit any such interventions. > >Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking >alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in >a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 >years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, >either. I know I'm just setting myself up for an Ozark insult, but I've hit my head fishing, I've hit my head running, I've hit my head skiing and I've hit my head cycling. Nothing more than scrapes (with stitches in the running case). But stuff happens. In many aspects of life. Cycling with a normal amount of prudence doesn't seem worthy of hard and fast "always wear a helmet" rules -- even personal rules. I think the odds of the helmet being useful are remote. But they're easy enough to use, so if you have one use it. But if you box yourself in to the point where you won't ride without one, you've got a problem. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 30 May 2006 21:01:35 From: Burt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1149003345.615768.267670@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, > sorry. Have you thought of getting treatment for your inability to post anything without crude sexual references?         Date: 30 May 2006 21:06:14 From: Grolch Subject: Re: Can't we just let this be? (used to be Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????) Can't we just let this be? "Burt" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message news:Po2fg.237015$tc.107387@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > news:1149003345.615768.267670@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal >> experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, >> sorry. > > Have you thought of getting treatment for your inability to post anything > without crude sexual references? >       Date: 30 May 2006 16:52:36 From: Chris Malcolm Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. >> >> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said >> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other >> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries >> don't merit any such interventions. > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > either. > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and > once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced > by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted. On the other hand in fifty years of cycling I've never even so much as bumped my head once, whereas I've suffered minor head or brain injuries fron slipping in the bath, falling down stairs, being walloped by a handbag, tripping on a creased carpet in my parents' sitting room, falling out of a tree, and falling off a cliff. > Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed > to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering > or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits > pavement, I'm better off helmeted. On a bicycle. Whereas in my personal experience I'd have suffered a lot less head and brain injury if I'd worn a helmet every time I wasn't on a bicycle. > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, > sorry. No need to apologise. We all recognise that a person's personal experience is very relevant to that person's personal decisions, whereas it is of no relevance to scientific conclusions and general advice to the general population. All that puzzles us is why you think you're so special that your personal experience trumps the general statistics and science that are generally recognised as relevant to general advice to the general population. >> Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are >> inconsistent. > No, it is not. Guess again. It's not a question of guessing, it's a question of logic. You have repeatedly and persistently contradicted yourself in the same way. Do you have the same kind of learning difficulties in other topics? -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]       Date: 30 May 2006 16:44:06 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Showering, no, walking, yes. > Funny thing, I've been walking > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40 > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower, > either. Tell that to all the people that make up the records. Oh, hang on, you don't believe in population statistics because that's just /other people/. I've never had cancer, so that means I'm immune? > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*, > sorry. Oh right, so I /am/ immune from cancer. That's nice, I don't ever have to worry about it any more, ever again. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 30 May 2006 18:10:25 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? > > Showering, no, walking, yes. Common sense says this is rubbish.           Date: 31 May 2006 08:41:03 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >>> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> Showering, no, walking, yes. > Common sense says this is rubbish. Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused autism, and so on (and on, and on). The relentless failures of common sense are why we use statistics. They're certainly not infallible, just as highly improbable outcomes aren't impossible, but they work a lot better than "common sense" in complex issues where people are making wrong assumptions for their groundwork. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 31 May 2006 10:10:32 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> >>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >>>> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >>> Showering, no, walking, yes. > >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > > Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the > Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice > as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph > will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain > has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large > stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused > autism, and so on (and on, and on). Oh please.               Date: 31 May 2006 14:09:44 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: >> Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the >> Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice >> as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph >> will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain >> has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large >> stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused >> autism, and so on (and on, and on). > > Oh please. Please get your thinking gear turned on. All of the above were considered self evident at some time in the past; it's only gaining more information than the public had at the time has let us see that they're nonsense. You can't assume everything you currently hold as self evident /must/ be true, as it's subject to revision with more information, just like the Earth being the centre of the universe etc. Or do you really think that you've reached some level of enlightenment that people of even the relatively recent past could not, since /your/ "common sense" is always right and theirs was often disastrously wrong? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 31 May 2006 08:37:28 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87slmqpqbr.fsf@news.europe.ch... > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > > > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>> > >>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > >>>> serious head injuries" as is cycling? > >>> Showering, no, walking, yes. > > > >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > > > > Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the > > Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice > > as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph > > will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain > > has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large > > stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused > > autism, and so on (and on, and on). > > Oh please. Please what? Are you attempting to counter the facts listed above with "Oh please?" That's about as effective as, oh, say, "Common sense says this is rubbish".           Date: 30 May 2006 17:17:28 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? > > > > Showering, no, walking, yes. > > Common sense says this is rubbish. Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability and statistics.) regards, Ian SMith --             Date: 30 May 2006 19:36:08 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > writes: > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >> >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> > >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> > >> > Showering, no, walking, yes. >> >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability > and statistics.) I dont believe the stats then. Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit? Ive slipped a few times in the shower : sometimes soap, sometimes shower mat, sometimes reaching for something with soap in my eyes - but have never clanged my head walking to the local spar. Again : I dont believe these statistics as being truly representational.               Date: 30 May 2006 22:58:29 From: Richard Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Ive slipped a few times in the shower : sometimes soap, sometimes shower > mat, sometimes reaching for something with soap in my eyes - but have > never clanged my head walking to the local spar. > > Again : I dont believe these statistics as being truly representational. There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see is flatness. R.                 Date: 30 May 2006 21:22:13 From: Kevan Smith Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <1qKdnfAJKr6VXeHZRVnytg@bt.com >, Richard <richard@nowhere.invalid > wrote: > There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see > is flatness. That seems dubious. -- fneep                   Date: 31 May 2006 10:42:23 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Kevan Smith wrote: > In article <1qKdnfAJKr6VXeHZRVnytg@bt.com>, > Richard <richard@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see >> is flatness. > > That seems dubious. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci               Date: 30 May 2006 15:34:10 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:87ejybxvnb.fsf@news.europe.ch... > Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes: > > > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> > >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> > > >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? > >> > > >> > Showering, no, walking, yes. > >> > >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > > > > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common > > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability > > and statistics.) > > I dont believe the stats then. > Well, there's just no arguring with that, then.               Date: 30 May 2006 18:01:17 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.] On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: > Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes: > > > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> > >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> > > >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of > >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? > >> > > >> > Showering, no, walking, yes. > >> > >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > > > > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common > > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability > > and statistics.) > > I dont believe the stats then. > > Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more > dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit? I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating showers than I and mine do. regards, Ian SMith --                 Date: 30 May 2006 23:03:28 From: Richard Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ian Smith wrote: > I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are > rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you > (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating > showers than I and mine do. Showers also don't tend to have dangerously slippery coatings of snow and ice in the winter (or if they do, they tend not to get used). Again, I wonder if American showers are different. R.                 Date: 30 May 2006 18:26:09 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ian Smith wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.] > On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark > <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes: >> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] >>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark >>> <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as >>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? >>>>> >>>>> Showering, no, walking, yes. >>>> >>>> Common sense says this is rubbish. >>> >>> Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common >>> sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, >>> probability >>> and statistics.) >> >> I dont believe the stats then. >> >> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is >> more dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit? > > I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are > rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you > (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating > showers than I and mine do. That's called moving the goal post by adding elements. HTH, B                 Date: 30 May 2006 20:24:08 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > writes: > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.] > On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes: >> >> > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] >> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >> >> >> >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >> >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> >> > >> >> > Showering, no, walking, yes. >> >> >> >> Common sense says this is rubbish. >> > >> > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common >> > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability >> > and statistics.) >> >> I dont believe the stats then. >> >> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more >> dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit? > > I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are > rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you Actually there are since my shower is behind the wall which borders a busy road. Probably about the same distance as the cards are to the pedestrians I would say. The cars which are doing 30mph max in built up traffic. > (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating > showers than I and mine do. > eh?                   Date: 30 May 2006 19:03:17 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: > Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes: > > > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.] > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more > >> dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit? > > > > I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are > > rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you > > Actually there are since my shower is behind the wall which borders a > busy road. Probably about the same distance as the cards are to the > pedestrians I would say. The cars which are doing 30mph max in built up > traffic. It seems unlikely. Unless the pedestrians are passing through your shower cubicle. Most showers are located further from the traffic than most pavements. Further, most showers have a solid barrier between the inhabitants and passing motor traffic, and most pavements do not. Are you going to deny those assertions too? > > (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating > > showers than I and mine do. > > eh? The society in which I live rarely installs showers at the roadside, and rarely has pavements that are not at the roadside. Yours may be different (I don't know what place you inhabit). It's physically possible that you're telling the truth and the average shower is similar distance and similarly protected from passing motor traffic as the average pavement in wherever it is. I think it unlikely, but it is possible. Consequently, it may be that you are being honest in your assessments. I think it unlikely, but it is possible. regards, Ian SMith --           Date: 30 May 2006 17:50:01 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >>> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> Showering, no, walking, yes. > > > Common sense says this is rubbish. And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong. -- Tony "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci             Date: 30 May 2006 18:23:37 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency} > Hadron Quark wrote: >> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive >>>> of serious head injuries" as is cycling? >>> Showering, no, walking, yes. >> Common sense says this is rubbish. > And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong. I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I dunno...say, 20 to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking amongst this group. (And, I'd venture to guess that the injury rate expressed as a percentage among all participants is quite a bit higher for cycling than...um, walking around.) B               Date: 30 May 2006 12:42:24 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:23:37 GMT, "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote: >Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency} >> Hadron Quark wrote: >>> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive >>>>> of serious head injuries" as is cycling? > >>>> Showering, no, walking, yes. > >>> Common sense says this is rubbish. > >> And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong. > >I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I dunno...say, 20 >to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking amongst this group. (And, >I'd venture to guess that the injury rate expressed as a percentage among >all participants is quite a bit higher for cycling than...um, walking >around.) > >B Dear Bill, Yes, statistics and percentages can be quite helpful. Glad to see you taking an interest in them. :) Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 30 May 2006 19:04:21 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:23:37 GMT, "Sorni" > <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote: > >> Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency} >>> Hadron Quark wrote: >>>> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as >>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> >>>>> Showering, no, walking, yes. >> >>>> Common sense says this is rubbish. >> >>> And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong. >> >> I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I >> dunno...say, 20 to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking >> amongst this group. (And, I'd venture to guess that the injury rate >> expressed as a percentage among all participants is quite a bit >> higher for cycling than...um, walking around.) >> >> B > > Dear Bill, > > Yes, statistics and percentages can be quite helpful. > > Glad to see you taking an interest in them. Just the honest ones, Carl. Thanks.           Date: 30 May 2006 17:44:58 From: David Hansen Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200 someone who may be Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote this:- >>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of >>> serious head injuries" as is cycling? >> >> Showering, no, walking, yes. > >Common sense says this is rubbish. Common sense may say this. However, what matters are the cold hard numbers and they say otherwise. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54     Date: 30 May 2006 07:33:38 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message > news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: > > > > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and > > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and > > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same > > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went > > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is > > >enough evidence for me. > > > > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. > > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? > > > That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently > > preventing serious injury and death. > > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear > one? > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.       Date: 01 Jun 2006 14:12:15 From: Tony Green Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to or not. As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? -- Tony Green Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk * This has been a Microsoft-free message *         Date: 01 Jun 2006 17:20:04 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:12:15 +0100, Tony Green <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk > wrote: >Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. >> >Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only >zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem >determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to >or not. I haven't seen that in rbt. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************         Date: 01 Jun 2006 15:30:41 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Green wrote: > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only > zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem > determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to > or not. Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that. > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't > appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.), we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs. > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? They're everywhere! In fact, there's one ri----- {arrggghh..... gurgle gurgle......unhhhhhh..........}           Date: 01 Jun 2006 18:33:25 From: Alan Braggins Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <BKDfg.9418$9W5.8055@tornado.socal.rr.com >, Sorni wrote: >Tony Green wrote: > >> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only >> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem >> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to >> or not. > >Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not >like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites >scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that. So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? That's a novel excuse. There's more to the world than Usenet you know - in real life, cycling events which require helmets are far more common that ones that ban them, and helmet laws and campaigns for them are far more common than attempts to ban them. In fact I doubt there's ever been any attempt to ban helmets, the whole "Anti Helmet Nazi Zealot" thing is completely bogus. >> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't >> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. > >Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing >lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.), No, you get shamed for not thinking clearly or being able to present a coherent argument. >we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs. No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively support a MHL.             Date: 01 Jun 2006 18:34:12 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Alan Braggins wrote: > So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? You DID cross-post this, you know. (Nice little trick with the null followup notwithstanding.)               Date: 01 Jun 2006 23:47:25 From: Alan Braggins Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <EqGfg.277$Ah.113@tornado.socal.rr.com >, Sorni wrote: >Alan Braggins wrote: > >> So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? > >You DID cross-post this, you know. Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in. But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some shit-stirrers have.                 Date: 01 Jun 2006 23:10:57 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Alan Braggins wrote: > In article <EqGfg.277$Ah.113@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni wrote: >> Alan Braggins wrote: >> >>> So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? >> >> You DID cross-post this, you know. > Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in. > But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies > to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some > shit-stirrers have. Fine. Go after the original cross-poster then. (Although if it's on topic for all groups, then what's the problem?) You made it sound like *I* initiated the cross-posting, which I did not. I hit "Reply Group". Post nanny. B             Date: 01 Jun 2006 19:55:39 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: > In article <BKDfg.9418$9W5.8055@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni wrote: > >>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs. > > No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" > appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively > support a MHL. See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have value are also active supporters of an MHL. How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice.               Date: 01 Jun 2006 23:50:41 From: Alan Braggins Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <87u074bw10.fsf@news.europe.ch >, Hadron Quark wrote: >armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: > >> In article <BKDfg.9418$9W5.8055@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni wrote: >> >>>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs. >> >> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" >> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively >> support a MHL. > >See : you just did it. What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand? > You have insinuated through clever snipping and >unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have >value are also active supporters of an MHL. Not all of them.                 Date: 02 Jun 2006 01:03:20 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: > In article <87u074bw10.fsf@news.europe.ch>, Hadron Quark wrote: >>armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: >> >>> In article <BKDfg.9418$9W5.8055@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni wrote: >>> >>>>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs. >>> >>> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" >>> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively >>> support a MHL. >> >>See : you just did it. > > What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand? > See below. Once again you twist like a skewered eel. > >> You have insinuated through clever snipping and >>unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have >>value are also active supporters of an MHL. > > Not all of them. Again : "But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively support a MHL." What part of someone saying they appreciate helmet protection but dont support MHLs dont you understand?               Date: 01 Jun 2006 18:34:43 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes: > >> In article <BKDfg.9418$9W5.8055@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni wrote: >> >>> we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively >>> supporting/ MHLs. >> >> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a >> MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the >> poster didn't actively support a MHL. > > See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and > unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have > value are also active supporters of an MHL. > > How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience > one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one > wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice. Bingo.         Date: 01 Jun 2006 10:24:56 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Tony Green" <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk > wrote in message news:447ee7af$0$665$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk... > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. > > > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only > zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem > determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to > or not. > > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear > to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. > > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? > They are imagined, just like the imagined "breach of confidence" and imagined "sexual deviance" which Ozark came up with, prompting him to start threads to attempt to smear the people who kept pointing out to him that a) he was wrong; and b) why he was wrong.         Date: 01 Jun 2006 15:24:38 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tony Green <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk > writes: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. >> > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only > zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem > determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to > or not. Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits of helmet wearing for cyclists. > > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't > appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. > > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as the sun goes down.           Date: 01 Jun 2006 14:59:14 From: Tony Green Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Tony Green <news@beermad.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.org.uk> writes: >> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only >> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem >> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to >> or not. > > Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most > are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits > of helmet wearing for cyclists. Who said anything about this referring /only/ to this thread? I'm referring to real life where proposals are frequently put formward to force all cyclists to wear helmets (sadly in some countries, successfully.) > >> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't >> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so. >> >> So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak? > > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and > that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as > the sun goes down. I think you need to look up the definition of "zealot". These are people arguing from a different point of view from yours. They can only sensibly be referred to as zealots if they try to /impose/ their views on you. I doubt there's a single person who chooses not to wear a helmet who would attempt to stop you wearing one if you so wished. -- Tony Green Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk * This has been a Microsoft-free message *           Date: 01 Jun 2006 13:40:47 From: Mark Thompson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection You've misrepresented the arguments. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html? 1013 > > and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as > the sun goes down. You've misrepresented the arguments. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf >             Date: 01 Jun 2006 11:31:13 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "k Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com > wrote in message news:Xns97D5955489E12pleasegivegenerously@62.253.170.163... > > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection > > You've misrepresented the arguments. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html? > 1013> > > > and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the > > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as > > the sun goes down. > > You've misrepresented the arguments. > <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf> Common helmet zealot tactic. Cue Ozark/Sorni...       Date: 30 May 2006 18:42:20 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 07:33:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > >GaryG wrote: >> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message >> news:187o7218a4gekngufge7onq8liedvfqeq2@4ax.com... >> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <foots@aohell.com> wrote: >> > >> > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and >> > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and >> > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same >> > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went >> > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is >> > >enough evidence for me. >> > >> > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >> >> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? >> >> > That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently >> > preventing serious injury and death. >> >> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a >> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our >> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear >> one? >> > >Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. Interesting that you consider those questions childish. In any case, do you have an answer for those questions. Or how about this one -- when you're in a car that has seatbelts but no airbags, do you wear a helmet? Surely it can mitigate risk -- especially if your car is hit from the side. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 30 May 2006 21:10:26 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 30 May 2006 07:33:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >> > >> > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such. >> >> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone? >> >> > That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently >> > preventing serious injury and death. >> >> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a >> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our >> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear >> one? >> > >Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts >such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you >wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. I certainly don't consider myself an anti-helmet zealot. But I do appreciate the arguement that the activities you mention (showering and walking) are statistically more likely to result in head injuries than bicycling. So where is the flaw? Indiana Mike       Date: 30 May 2006 20:20:58 From: Don Whybrow Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. Ooh look! Oz-Troll is back -- Don Whybrow Sequi Bonum Non Time "The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)       Date: 30 May 2006 16:08:13 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries don't merit any such interventions. Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are inconsistent. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 30 May 2006 15:35:40 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the >> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish >> retorts such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why >> don't you wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. > If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't > said why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other > activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries > don't merit any such interventions. > > Your position and logic on head protection for different activities > are inconsistent. "If Jimmy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" That doesn't mean that everything Jimmy advises is stupid. HTH (but doubt it)       Date: 30 May 2006 15:06:45 From: Mark Thompson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? >> Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear >> one? > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc. A considered response would be something along the lines of: "The cyclist may wish to weigh up the benefits from limited protection against minor injury and the disbenefits that come from wearing a helmet, which are not limited to issues of comfort and convenience. Cycle helmets do well at preventing minor injuries to the top of the head, but may increase the likelyhood of severe brain injury[1]." The question "why not wear a helmet when walking" is not childish, as walking exposes you to a similar or greater risk of head injury than cycling. That you pretend to be ignorant of this leads me to conclude that you're trolling. Fcksocks, hooked again <shoots self in head > [1] <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00012-X > <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1039 >       Date: 30 May 2006 15:55:14 From: elyob Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1148999617.898926.279470@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Why did you copy UKRC in? It's your discussion, keep it!     Date: 25 May 2006 12:49:25 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: <snipped > -heresy in the Church of the Helmetnots!- > > As it is, they [helmets] almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really > denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/. And minimizing minor injuries is to be avoided?       Date: 25 May 2006 22:18:22 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > And minimizing minor injuries is to be avoided? Not avoided, but OTOH there's no point going very far out of one's way to avoid them. I've had a couple of minor burns in the kitchen over the years, all of which could've been avoided with heatproof gloves and suit. But I generally do my cooking in normal clothes, like everyone else. Last time I hurt my head was in the kitchen too, drew blood and all, banging it on the edge of an open cupboard door. So to minimisie such risks and injuries, I should be wearing a helmet? Really? Trips and falls on sidewalks lead to plenty of head injuries every year, so why doesn't it make sense to wear your lid there? Some of these aren't minor, some are fatal, and a fall from low speed to the ground with no vehicle involved is just what the cycle helmet specification is for, so it should make even /more/ sense to wear one as a pedestrian if you really follow through your logic. Plenty of people have trips and falls with injuries that could be lessened with helmets, just your reason for using one on a bike. So whyt not on the sidewalk? It makes similar sense. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 24 May 2006 09:40:46 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > > > Having asked for a study I gave you a reference suggesting that those > > wearing a helmet are 7 times as likely to hit their heads if they > > crash. > > SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think > that study could be hugely flawed? Sorni, please, no handwaving. Instead, explain the study's flaws in detail. Start by giving a decent citation, and some actual quotes. That would indicate there's a _chance_ you read the study in question. (And it would surprise the heck out of us!) Oh, and if you were going to say "I don't have time to read studies," as you have before, PLEASE stop wasting time by posting. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 22 May 2006 07:44:05 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? What a coincidence! Yesterday, not even a mile into the Montauk 145-mile ride in NYC, this cyclist was clutching his bloody head next to a taxicab. Hardly made me think about my own helmet hung off my seat. I thought, hell, you might as well wear a full-face BMX helmet, then. But of course, what are the chances? And that's what the heart of the matter is: what do you think your chances are, given what you know about yourself as a rider, given what you know about the typical traffic flow in your part of the world, given what you know about the efficacy of styrofoam as a life-saving or harm-moderating material? I try not to let anyone else make that kind of a decision for me, whether State law or bike clubs. So far, the overwhelming majority of people (~98%) don't try to -- cops don't bother, clubs don't bother, etc. It is my life, after all. Thank you. =) foots wrote: > I hit a pothole yesterday, lost control and went down. Besides the > road rash on my left leg and arm, my neck has a cramp that concerns me > a little. I can remember when my head hit the pavement, it hit hard, I > thought the helmut was going to shatter into pieces, but that turned > out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I > know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I > not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know > it reduced my injuries considerably. > > > On 15 May 2006 14:14:26 +0100 (BST), David Damerell > <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > >Quoting Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com>: > >>Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? > > > >Because, if your position is consistent, why do you not wear a helmet for > >other activities as dangerous as cycling, like travelling in motor cars? > > > >>Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough > >>material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who > >>reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe > >>even their lives. > > > >Indeed. So many, in fact, that it is quite obvious that these stories are > >nonsense. How can one in twenty helmet-wearers have had their lives saved > >by helmets if only one in every few thousand cyclists can expect to be > >killed while riding?     Date: 14 May 2006 15:08:43 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > > > Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are > not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether > bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case > of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie). We are bringing other activities into this because, once one examines the real data - as opposed to the fearmongering - it's obvious that bicycling is not particularly dangerous. There's no more reason to use a helmet during ordinary bicycling than there is during ordinary driving, or ordinary walking. See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm People who are intent on scaring us about bicycling will never admit that, apparently. Or, in some cases, they will never understand that comparing risk is a logical thing to do! > I have seen enough > material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who > reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe > even their lives. You should look into witch doctors, faith healers and magic crystals! There are even more people who believe those things have saved them! Why, they _must_ be correct - no? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 14 May 2006 10:02:10 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Per Peter Clinch: > >So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot? > > You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens. If we could agree to keep mountain biking separate from ordinary riding on roads, perhaps we could save lots of misunderstanding. If you're going mountain biking in tricky terrain, it's not illogical to want to wear a helmet. Falling is part of the game. Ordinary road riding is much, much different. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 10 May 2006 17:14:24 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than > running: > >> >> 1) faster > > Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters. > When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed? Oh for gods sake. > >> 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions > > Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should > cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should > runners don them in winter? Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion is whether a helmet can be beneficial. Certainly I would consider wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat netherlands cycle track. > >> 3) higher > > ?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny > farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's > standing. True : I guess I meant "less stable above the ground in low speed conditions". > >> 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards > > Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to > deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and > relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when > the runner generally does not. > >> 5) more prone to slip stream > > This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a > stability problem due to "slipstream." The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars. > >> 6) more prone to cross winds > > Ditto. Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are clearly very lucky. > > If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for > data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really, > really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data. Who said that? Not me. > > One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet > Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475. > Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for > her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as > bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists. > (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a > well-developed, westernized urban area.) > > Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than > for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume, > walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners. > > Read the paper and see the numbers. > >> Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO. > > Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_ > certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find > some? I note you still dont answer the question and keep formulating a totally incorrect one. Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial in this case. > > - Frank Krygowski > --       Date: 27 May 2006 16:57:31 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:878xp952un.fsf@gmail.com... > > > > > One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet > > Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475. > > Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for > > her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as > > bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists. > > (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a > > well-developed, westernized urban area.) > > > > Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than > > for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume, > > walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners. > > > > Read the paper and see the numbers. > > > >> Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO. > > > > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial > in this case. > Why bother asking this question? It is far removed from the real-life situation. A better one is: Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) of whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to the likelyhood of injury?         Date: 27 May 2006 20:19:19 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) of > whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to the > likelyhood of injury? Of course.           Date: 27 May 2006 17:50:36 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:bv2eg.7817$uM4.863@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > > Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) of > > whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to the > > likelyhood of injury? > > Of course. > Then why do not population-level studies show this?             Date: 28 May 2006 01:26:37 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:VZ2eg.23752$43.2079@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message > news:bv2eg.7817$uM4.863@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> >> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >> >> > Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) > of >> > whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to >> > the >> > likelyhood of injury? >> >> Of course. >> > > Then why do not population-level studies show this? Because true "road cyclists" are only a small percentage of the overall population.               Date: 28 May 2006 07:20:46 From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote in message news:h%6eg.7849$uM4.6461@tornado.socal.rr.com... > > "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:VZ2eg.23752$43.2079@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > > > > "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message > > news:bv2eg.7817$uM4.863@tornado.socal.rr.com... > >> > >> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > >> news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > >> > >> > Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) > > of > >> > whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to > >> > the > >> > likelyhood of injury? > >> > >> Of course. > >> > > > > Then why do not population-level studies show this? > > Because true "road cyclists" are only a small percentage of the overall > population. > Reference please.                 Date: 28 May 2006 14:47:44 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? jtaylor wrote: > "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message > news:h%6eg.7849$uM4.6461@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> >> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> news:VZ2eg.23752$43.2079@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >>> >>> "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message >>> news:bv2eg.7817$uM4.863@tornado.socal.rr.com... >>>> >>>> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>>> news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >>>> >>>>> Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a >>>>> choice) of whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a >>>>> difference to the >>>>> likelyhood of injury? >>>> >>>> Of course. >>>> >>> >>> Then why do not population-level studies show this? >> >> Because true "road cyclists" are only a small percentage of the >> overall population. >> > > Reference please. www.itsobviouslikeduh.com                   Date: 28 May 2006 15:51:20 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:47:44 GMT, "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com > wrote: >jtaylor wrote: >> "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message >> news:h%6eg.7849$uM4.6461@tornado.socal.rr.com... >>> >>> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>> news:VZ2eg.23752$43.2079@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >>>> >>>> "Sorni" <sornonispam@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bv2eg.7817$uM4.863@tornado.socal.rr.com... >>>>> >>>>> "jtaylor" <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:8c2eg.23751$43.7770@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... >>>>> >>>>>> Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a >>>>>> choice) of whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a >>>>>> difference to the >>>>>> likelyhood of injury? >>>>> >>>>> Of course. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then why do not population-level studies show this? >>> >>> Because true "road cyclists" are only a small percentage of the >>> overall population. >>> >> >> Reference please. > > >www.itsobviouslikeduh.com > I have to say, that was funny. I assume by road cyclists, Sorni means the athletic sort of people who use the bike for recreation and have fairly high-end equipment. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                     Date: 28 May 2006 16:40:55 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: >>>>>>> Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a >>>>>>> choice) of whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a >>>>>>> difference to the >>>>>>> likelyhood of injury? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course. Unless you get in front of a semi and parts of your body are scattered along the street, then your head is intact and your last thought is "Oh shit, but my head is safe........". >>>>>> > I assume by road cyclists, Sorni means the athletic sort of people who > use the bike for recreation and have fairly high-end equipment. > > JT > I am an athletic sort who does not have high-end equipment, so are you saying that to keep in shape you have to spend the rent money? I have 6 low-end bikes and plenty of spares so I always have at least 2 bikes to pick from. Of course I have a house in the country and room for them all, unlike the city dweller who has to cram one into an apartment. I did that for a while then just rented a house in the 'burbs and the bike collection exploded. Bill Baka                       Date: 28 May 2006 20:42:23 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > wrote: >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: > >>>>>>>> Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a >>>>>>>> choice) of whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a >>>>>>>> difference to the >>>>>>>> likelyhood of injury? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course. > >Unless you get in front of a semi and parts of your body are scattered along >the street, then your head is intact and your last thought is "Oh shit, but >my head is safe........". >>>>>>> >> I assume by road cyclists, Sorni means the athletic sort of people who >> use the bike for recreation and have fairly high-end equipment. >> >> JT >> >I am an athletic sort who does not have high-end equipment, so are you >saying that to keep in shape you have to spend the rent money? I have 6 >low-end bikes and plenty of spares so I always have at least 2 bikes to >pick from. Of course I have a house in the country and room for them all, >unlike the city dweller who has to cram one into an apartment. I did that >for a while then just rented a house in the 'burbs and the bike collection >exploded. >Bill Baka First, could you get your attributions right. I didn't right anything of the above except the two lines that begin with >>. Regarding your question: no. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 10 May 2006 17:37:03 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? ps Was just browsing some long distance touring notes: http://www.bikechina.com/ct-johnmchale1.html "I still haven¡Çt decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don¡Çt let bees fly into your mouth"¡Ä?? I went over head-first, and it¡Çs obvious that my helmet saved my life." so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to the original question: What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt? .. then the answer is clear. Compulsory? Not for me thanks. But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only himself to blame". --         Date: 11 May 2006 09:09:18 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > "I still haven¡Çt decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along > the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don¡Çt let > bees fly into your mouth"¡Ä?? I went over head-first, and it¡Çs obvious > that my helmet saved my life." This is "obvious" to a lot of people, to such a ridiculous extent it merits a headline page at the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation website. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 Not as obvious as he might seem to think. > so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to > the original question: > > What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt? > > .. then the answer is clear. Though in a court of law with expert witnesses we hear from Brian Walker, who runs the company that test helmets for meeting their specifications in the UK that: "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." > But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only > himself to blame". No, he'll reply as above, showing how your data points aren't quite as good as you seem to think. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 11 May 2006 23:30:14 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <4cg9pfF14s66tU1@individual.net >, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 The site is too frustrating to navigate without Java script enabled; and I will not enable it. I am not even interested in trying to find an email address to express my preferences. -- Michael Press       Date: 10 May 2006 16:35:30 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >>> 1) faster >> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters. >> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed? > > Oh for gods sake. Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it /should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes sense in one case but not the other to reverse. If not, why not? > Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion > is whether a helmet can be beneficial. So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too? > Certainly I would consider > wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat > netherlands cycle track. The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far better suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to accidents in fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you can't expect any beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor vehicle collisions create. It's also my experience that there is far more close overtaking on a fietspad than on a road. > The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars. Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's from better luck. We don't know. > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial > in this case. It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're not the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater proportion of ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the cyclists, so they're better candidates. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 10 May 2006 18:39:57 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >>>> 1) faster >>> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters. >>> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed? >> Oh for gods sake. > > Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for > wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it > /should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes > sense in one case but not the other to reverse. > If not, why not? I am not complaining. I am pointing out that you seem incapable of reaching a conclusion because you fall over yourself mumbling the bleeding obvious. > >> Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion >> is whether a helmet can be beneficial. > > So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too? > I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. Some scree runners do. What is your point other than to obfuscate and come across as a bit of a bore? >> Certainly I would consider >> wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat >> netherlands cycle track. > > The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far > better suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to > accidents in fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you > can't expect any beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor > vehicle collisions create. It's also my experience that there is far > more close overtaking on a fietspad than on a road. Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like to move the goalposts dont you? > >> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars. > > Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's > from better luck. We don't know. And I dont really care : maybe you can take that offline and discuss it? Since it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread : what you may or may not have experienced. > >> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a >> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial >> in this case. > > It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to > wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear > one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're Look at the title of this NG. > not the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater > proportion of ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the > cyclists, so they're better candidates. Statistics : you canprove anything with them.           Date: 11 May 2006 09:04:22 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: "Oh for gods sake" not a complaint? Really? If it's obvious that there's a speed crossover between those on foot and those on bikes then it makes sense that speed is not a reason to always be wearing a hat on a bike but not on foot. Yet you have suggested it is. > I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. So why respond to Cathy when she asks why there is a difference between her running and cycling as regards wearing a helmet? > Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like > to move the goalposts dont you? The priy difference between a fietspad and a busy road is the motor traffic. So the priy accident difference in terms of what might happen will be being hit by a vehicle or not. As far as minor falls go there's a lot more close overtaking and less room for manoeuvre on a fietspad. >> It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to >> wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear >> one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're > > Look at the title of this NG. So if we're talking to cyclists, we say that despite them being at no more particular risk than other groups, they should wear protective helmets that the other groups don't? What about people that do both, like the poster who started this little sub-thread does? > Statistics : you canprove anything with them. No you can't: you can /try/ and mislead but if the methodology is published you *will* be found out in time if you're trying to pull a fast one (for example, 85% effectiveness of cycle helmets). Your statement above amounts to "La la la I can't hear you" in lieu of actually looking into the matter as objectively as you can. That doesn't do /anybody/ any favours. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 10 May 2006 07:43:05 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988? > > Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes. > > And? > > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam "microshell" helmets were not yet on the ket. There were styrofoam shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but those weren't even helmets. The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?     Date: 10 May 2006 16:06:54 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078. Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened. > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference? Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not, so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear because they wouldn't do any harm. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 10 May 2006 06:32:13 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch wrote: <snipped for clarity and brevity > > The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers, > G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the > CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, > 1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is > positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use" > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?     Date: 10 May 2006 14:51:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988? Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes. And? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 10 May 2006 12:43:59 From: Jon Meinecke Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? newsgroups reduced... > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> I'm yet to see anything, however, that suggests to me that >>> a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway to safety. "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote > [Journal of Products Liability, 1988] > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988? > > Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes. > > And? Don't you know how much bicycle helmets have improved in the last 18 years? %^) They are much more holy wholly holey! The keting advances are phenomenal! -- It's *easy* to postulate scenarios where a helmet might *increase* injury or cases where it might foster more risky behavior. It is interesting that people who can easily think of scenarios where a helmet might help cannot think of any where a helmet might make things worse... Must be magic. %^) I wear a helmet, not magical, while biking because I think the small protection it might offer in some circumstance is not outweighed by the chance it might make things worse,-- and because I don't find it uncomfortable. But I also consider the cultural undercurrent/subtext that for many people seeing a bare-headed cyclist suggests a disregard for safety. As unsupported as that conventional wisdom is by evidence, it is common. Since I don't mind wearing the helmet, it's another indication to motorists based on their perceptions that I am cycling responsibly. Just like stopping at controlled intersections, using hand signals, and positioning for visibility, presence, and intention, which are more predictive of safety than my "hat". Jon Meinecke   Date: 09 May 2006 19:31:42 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Read up on Occams Razor. > > > > > > I've done that long ago, thanks. > > > > > You may have read it, but did you _understand_? > > Quite well, thank you. FWIW, one of my best friends is a recognized > expert who wrote a college textbook on critical thinking. > > > Your reaching and hiding in > > statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame. > > :-) In your expert opinion? > > > See: "Helmet > > Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing. > > Yes, I've seen it. An exercise for those who believe "data" is the > plural of "anecdote." Discount real world experiences all you like, that's all you have. Remember to inflate that doll and "lube up". Have a happy night! < Frank's noctural emissions snipped >   Date: 09 May 2006 19:27:14 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? (PeteCresswell) wrote: > > > I can't prove it, but I believe that a helmet would save my life it I fell in > such a way that the side of my head were slapped into a 3" pointed > pyramid-shaped outcropping sticking up from the ground around it. > > I don't expect such outcroppings or other rocks on the stairs, in showers, or in > my car - so I'd never think of wearing a helmet there. > > Similarly, when I'm riding in conditions where rocks aren't an issue, I may or > may not bother with my helmet - mostly depending on weather and my mood... > > I cite that particular example because having my head slapped on the ground hard > enough to knock me out - but a few inches clear of such an outcropping - was > what got me wearing a helmet after heaven-only-knows how many thousand miles of > road riding with the wind in my hair. FWIW, I had a somewhat similar experience about ten years ago. I was on foot. I'd taken the garbage out at night in wintertime. Coming back to the house, my feet slipped on a film of ice and I went down like a judo throw, hard on my left side. As I lay there, I looked down and saw a pointed edge of our sidewalk that my pelvis had missed by six inches or less. And I instantaneously thought "Wow. I could have broken my pelvis." I got up, walked into the house... and to my amazement, started literally shaking. However, I did _not_ start wearing hip protectors when walking in winter. And nobody would. As usual, it's only cycling that gets the "protective equipment" treatment. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 09 May 2006 19:21:38 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Read up on Occams Razor. > > > > I've done that long ago, thanks. > > > You may have read it, but did you _understand_? Quite well, thank you. FWIW, one of my best friends is a recognized expert who wrote a college textbook on critical thinking. > Your reaching and hiding in > statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame. :-) In your expert opinion? > See: "Helmet > Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing. Yes, I've seen it. An exercise for those who believe "data" is the plural of "anecdote." You'd get similar positive results by polling clients of faith healers, you know. Why _do_ you think national-level studies show different results? Scientist conspiracies? - Frank Krygowski   Date: 09 May 2006 15:25:45 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Hadron Quark wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > >> Sid wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > > >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > >> > > >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > > >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? > > > > > > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." > > > > > > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels > > > they can understand. > > You really are a pompous gasbag, aren't you? > > Read up on Occams Razor. > > I've done that long ago, thanks. > You may have read it, but did you _understand_? In essence, it is to "postulate the fewest hypothetical entities" (i.e., the simplest plausible explanation is usually best). Your reaching and hiding in statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame. See: "Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing. Experience, Frank....it means actually doing it, having it happen, not curling up with Penthouse, AstroGlide and your imagination. BTW, what brand of bumwad is best, based on your extensive research? <surplus hot gases snipped >     Date: 09 May 2006 23:40:37 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> Hadron Quark wrote: >>> frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >>> >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> Sid wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and >>>>>> hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a >>>>>> helmet. >>>>> >>>>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who >>>>> can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their >>>>> anti-helmet agenda? >>>> >>>> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." >>>> >>>> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to >>>> levels they can understand. >>> > > You really are a pompous gasbag, aren't you? Invective! Invective! Haven't you figured it out yet, O? We're supposed to let Frank and JFT and Press and Dough and {insert favorite AHZ persona here} talk down to us, insult us, dismiss us, etc. and then just say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" How DARE you resort to name-calling? {sarcams off; sorni out}   Date: 09 May 2006 08:58:06 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >> Sid wrote: > >> > > >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > >> > >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? > > > > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." > > > > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels > > they can understand. > > Read up on Occams Razor. I've done that long ago, thanks. I don't believe William of Occam would approve of "If I hit my head a helmet will help, so everyone should wear helmets." For one thing, he'd probably want some data. I believe he'd be more impressed with "They made the whole population of Australia wear bike helmets, and they observed no improvement in serious head injuries per rider." Based on that, he'd say "The simplest explanation is best. The helmets aren't providing significant protection." Again, for Sorni and Ozark, the latter cuts no ice. Actual data is too much trouble. Perhaps you're with them? Those interested in the latest data, published in the British Medical Journal, should go to http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/ch/ac722.pdf > You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae > data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head. ?? Helmets are promoted as protecting against serious head injuries. Data indicates they don't protect against serious head injuries - at least, data from large populations. Why is checking to see if they actually work "minutae"? You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 May 2006 18:10:32 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. > > - Frank Krygowski > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the coat peg? --       Date: 09 May 2006 10:11:23 From: Eric Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause > more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the > coat peg? Any idea why nobody thought of this before?       Date: 09 May 2006 17:03:08 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> >> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause > more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the > coat peg? Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).         Date: 09 May 2006 14:05:19 From: Bill Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Hadron Quark wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> >>> >>> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. >>> >>> - Frank Krygowski >>> >> >> Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause >> more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the >> coat peg? > > Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be). How about the "Helmets cause over confidence" argument. Bicycle helmets still leave your forehead, nose, and teeth out there to get hit, but mainly protect the critical back part of your brain, where a hard whack could mean sudden death. I saw a more protective type of helmet in Mountain Bike Action magazine but it covers the ears and may not be much good for road riding. I guess it depends on how much protection you want versus how much awareness of surroundings 'hearing' you want to give up. The stunts on mountain bikes really do want a better helmet, but then again these guys are not listening for cars either. Personal choice is up to the rider. Bill Baka           Date: 10 May 2006 04:44:52 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Bill" <bbaka@syix.com > wrote in message news:1147208594.560435@news01.syix.com... > > How about the "Helmets cause over confidence" argument. That does appear to be the case. Nevertheless the accidents that seem to be caused by overconfidence seem to me to be more of the riding down hill too fast and crashing into the hedge sort of thing. > Bicycle helmets > still leave your forehead, nose, and teeth out there to get hit, but > mainly > protect the critical back part of your brain, where a hard whack could > mean > sudden death. I saw a more protective type of helmet in Mountain Bike > Action magazine but it covers the ears and may not be much good for road > riding. Here's the problem with that - a helmet provides protection by the foam crushing. You can't make the foam any larger because they the helmet starts hitting the ground before any other body part. Remember that more people are killed by the twising motion which scrambles the brains or snaps the neck than from crushing of the skull. In these "full coverage" helmets the foam can't be any thicker than in a standard helmet. They just cover parts of the head that aren't covered in other helmets and anyone that road bikes will tell you in a second that wearing a helmet on a hard climb is almost unbearable. I've experimented myself in riding 50 mile climbing rides with and without a helmet and it very definitely tires you more to wear a helmet and are incapable of venting heat from your head on a climb. You can try it yourself if you don't believe it. After a 50 mile ride I could tell a significant difference in how tired I was. And that neatly ties in to the Specialized tests which said EXACTLY the opposite in the "conclusions" and then in the data plainly showed a large performance drop off in trained riders at lower air speeds. Here's the worst part of all this - studies show that teaching children the proper way to ride a bicycle has a trememdous safey impact. And it lasts for their entire life. When you promote helmets as providing safety of any sort the world simply drops the arduous education and just says "Always wear your helmet". I've got this idea that Sori and Hadron Quark are a couple of really geeky guys and they want everyone to wear helmets so that they don't feel too out of place. And to repeat for the 1000th time: 90% of all accidents are minor as are 90% of all head injuries (unfortunately something like 75% of minor head injuries are to the chin, ears or face but nevertheless). We BELIEVE that helmets can mediate these sorts of injuries but we cannot cite any studies. These are good enough reasons for most people to wear a helmet and there's no criticism of these people. Those whom we do criticize are the idiots who seem to repeat endlessly, "Helmets Save Lives". They don't and there's 15 years of DMV data proving that point beyond any question.   Date: 09 May 2006 08:21:38 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1147153574.520134.218840@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > GaryG wrote: > > > > > > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at > > > best. > > > > I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" > > and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting > > that as proven fact. > > Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the > signal to noise ratio. They relay information that I read which is possibly pertinent. In some cases, reks like this have brought either confirming documentation, or complete rebuttal, from people who happen to be experts. If that happens either way, we learn. If the ideas are never mentioned, we have no opportunity to learn. > In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this > issue to at _least_ defend your > views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident > daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to > blather on Usenet". That was directed toward people who were arguing vociferously for well over a week, from a position of almost total ignorance of pertinent facts. You need to understand the difference between energetic defense of ignorance, and deliberately tentative presentation of what may be a pertinent fact. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 May 2006 22:33:43 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1147188098.611236.153400@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > GaryG wrote: > > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1147153574.520134.218840@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > GaryG wrote: > > > > > > > > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at > > > > best. > > > > > > I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" > > > and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting > > > that as proven fact. > > > > Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the > > signal to noise ratio. > > They relay information that I read which is possibly pertinent. They relayed nothing except your biases, and your need to pontificate. > In > some cases, reks like this have brought either confirming > documentation, or complete rebuttal, from people who happen to be > experts. If that happens either way, we learn. By your own reasoning then, posting something like "my friend said a helmet saved him from a concussion when he hit his head on the curb" would be as acceptable as your posting "I recall reading about a guy who might have said...blah-blah-blah" without citations or context. > > If the ideas are never mentioned, we have no opportunity to learn. We've learned nothing from your "I read an article" post, other than how it illustrates your biases. > > > In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this > > issue to at _least_ defend your > > views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident > > daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to > > blather on Usenet". > > That was directed toward people who were arguing vociferously for well > over a week, from a position of almost total ignorance of pertinent > facts. > > You need to understand the difference between energetic defense of > ignorance, and deliberately tentative presentation of what may be a > pertinent fact. Yes...I think I can discern the difference, and which side your arguments fall on. GG > > - Frank Krygowski >   Date: 09 May 2006 01:58:15 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? NYC XYZ wrote: > Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so > far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding > comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me > over yet or kicked me out. =) well, since you bought it anyway why not start wearing it when on your bike? This is usually enough to appease the Nazis as they tend to be more fixated on helmut wearing than safety <vbg > best wishes james   Date: 08 May 2006 22:46:14 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1147114484.433238.184140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP > > position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because > > he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV > > exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named > > the company, and it was just a rek in passing. > > And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at > best. I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting that as proven fact. Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn. Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it saved my life!!!" By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 May 2006 14:12:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to > the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked > and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why. I think one is designed to be biodegradeable due to the "Save the Earth" movement. OK for garbage cans which typically get bashed to death anyway, but not so good for helmets. Most of the plastic stuff I have that is over 10 years old seems to be getting flakey, whether by intent or not is probably a moot point. Bill Baka > > - Frank Krygowski     Date: 08 May 2006 23:01:31 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1147153574.520134.218840@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > GaryG wrote: > > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1147114484.433238.184140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP > > > position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because > > > he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV > > > exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named > > > the company, and it was just a rek in passing. > > > > And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? > > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at > > best. > > I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" > and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting > that as proven fact. Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the signal to noise ratio. In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to blather on Usenet". I'd suggest you take your own advice. GG > > Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin > to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will > propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a > test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a > full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn. > > Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an > anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the > crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it > saved my life!!!" > > By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to > the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked > and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why. > > - Frank Krygowski >   Date: 08 May 2006 22:10:38 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > Sid wrote: > > > > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that "common sense" is often wrong. So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose? And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other sources? Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway - how could they? That would require reading! But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to blather on Usenet? I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident daydreams. But I know that won't happen. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 May 2006 11:51:32 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> Sid wrote: >> > >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. >> >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? > > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." > > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels > they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything > - hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that > "common sense" is often wrong. > > So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device > that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than > nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose? Read up on Occams Razor. > > And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is > responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other > sources? > > Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data > indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway - > how could they? That would require reading! > > But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious > studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to > blather on Usenet? You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head. Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour? Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed. > > I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your > views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident > daydreams. But I know that won't happen. Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it? See? Its not so difficult. FWIW, I hate helmets and dont wear one as I feel that it reduces my overrall awareness - others I know say it doesnt affect them at all in that way. > > - Frank Krygowski > --       Date: 10 May 2006 04:29:52 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote in message news:873bfjil0b.fsf@gmail.com... > > You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae > data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head. So does a baseball cap. The difference in fact isn't large enough between a bicycle crash helmet and a baseball cap to make much difference. If you WANT to wear one that's perfectly OK with me. If you want to insist they work I suggest you actually learn something. Start at the Snell Memorial Foundation's web site. They will explain if you can understand fairly simple mathematics, that their standard is pitifully inadequate for purposes of simple protection in a dead stop fall-over. After you finished with that you can look at the CPSC helmet standard and you will see that standard is significantly BELOW the Snell standard. Now go tune in to the one of the latest issues of Consumer Reports and WHEEEEEEE - MOST of the helmets BARELY make the lower standard, a significant number don't even pass that lower standard and the most expensive helmets are worse that the cheaper ones. Funny how education might modify the mind of someone who actually has one. > Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect > against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour? > Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed. If you're trying to protect your hand from a chainsaw with a glove then the answer is NO. Go that? The BEST gloves won't protect your hand from a chain saw. Or is it your suggestion that we redefine a gauntlet as a glove so that you can feel clever? If you're suggesting that gloves on a bicyclist are not significant protection for your hands you are incorrect. A bicycle helmet in the vast majority of serious or fatal bicycle accidents has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER!!! If you're trying to sell helmets as mediating minor head injuries then indeed we have something to discuss. Perhaps THAT is the reason that you wear a helmet? After all we have all seen the Bell and Giro ads - "Bicycle Helmets Help Reduce Minor Injuries". > Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would > you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it? I can honestly say that in my 45 years of riding motorcycles all over the US, road racing, desert racing, cross country, touring, Safety Director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists, bicycling for the last 20 years, off road, on road, road racing etc. I have NEVER heard of nor seen a single head injury caused by a big stick covered in tar and gravel. And I would be really interested in your discription of this accident in which a helmet apparently saved your life.     Date: 09 May 2006 06:51:02 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> Sid wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and >>> hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. >> >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet >> agenda? > > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." > > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels > they can understand. Hunh...yuk yuk. That be about right, unh... Ain't got no need for no city lernin'! > That seems to preclude actually learning > anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study, You decided to deride helmets and then went and found additional "studies" (dubious term, that) to confirm your belief (opinion!). The only difference with me (and I suspect many others) is we don't NEED studies to verify what to us are simple, easy, common sense decisions (CHOICES). Different people have different styles, habits, ways, etc. Frank. Should I DAGS and cite something to back that up? > and Ozark's refusal to > consider that "common sense" is often wrong. Bite us. (OK, that's wrong.) > > So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a > device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's > better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose? > > And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is > responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other > sources? > > Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data > indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway > - how could they? That would require reading! Horse shit. There are just as many reputable sources indicating that helmets ARE effective. Just because YOU discount them doesn't mean they aren't valid. > > But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious > studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to > blather on Usenet? OMG that's rich coming from you. If I fall over laughing, I hope I have my lid on! > > I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your > views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident > daydreams. But I know that won't happen. Logic: better to have some protection on one's head when banging it against hard and maybe even pointy objects/surfaces. Even The Stest Person In The World (the intellectual bully with at least two-score IQ points on me so that makes him 180++) believes in and wears helmets on bike rides. And like you, he seems to extensively research nearly every waking thought he has, so it MUST be a pretty informed choice (CHOICE). Also, Doctor Google, if I and Ozark are such intellectual lightweights, then why the hell do you CARE what the hell we say/think/argue/defend?!? Aren't you secure enough in your lofty internet tower to just smugly dismiss us as the backwoods buffoons we so obviously are? OK, back to the comics page and reruns for us. WE AIN'T EQWIPT TO DO THESE TALKY THINGS ON THIS HERE INTERNET THING. Bowleggedly skulking away, Billy Bob S.   Date: 08 May 2006 19:10:20 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sid wrote: > > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably > > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb > > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. > > > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?     Date: 14 May 2006 10:23:39 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > Sorni wrote: > > > >> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO. > > > > Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or > > so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up > > means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since, > > say, 1985? > > Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies and > stats. > > Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the > pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER > FILED. Sorni, you and others frequently claim this is a "flaw." I can only assume you're still refusing to read the studies. Let's try an analogy. Say 10,000 people in a certain city saw their doctor for colds every year, year after year. Say the entire city took a new, highly touted cold vaccine beginning January 1. And at the end of the year, 10,000 people had seen their doctors for colds, just like before. Despite the vaccine. Would you say "The vaccine worked. It's just that we never heard about the people who didn't get colds"? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 May 2006 23:05:03 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1147140620.490943.273160@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Sid wrote: > > > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably > > > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb > > > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. > > > > > > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit > > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. > > Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't > grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? > To me it seems that a helmet would save your head in any fall, whether there is a bike in the vicinity or not. It would help on stairs, in showers, in car crashes, all of which have more injuries per capita than bicycles. So, if it's so commonsensical, why aren't people wearing helmets whenever they get off the couch? I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.       Date: 10 May 2006 10:17:48 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > writes: > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling > to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads > (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person > has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running. Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors with totally different accident results.         Date: 10 May 2006 07:31:49 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <87wtcu1efn.fsf@gmail.com >, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: > "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: > > > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while > > pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, > > on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more > > often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a > > helmet when I go running. > > Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled > in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing > mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with > it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk > factors with totally different accident results. According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.           Date: 10 May 2006 12:57:36 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <87wtcu1efn.fsf@gmail.com>, > Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while >> > pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, >> > on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more >> > often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a >> > helmet when I go running. >> >> Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled >> in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >> mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with >> it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk >> factors with totally different accident results. > >According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence >of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that >among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more >benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists. Dear Tim, I was wondering when someone would mention that point. Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities next to the bicycle data. The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years, with neither showing any reaction to massive increases in bicycle helmet use. Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously injured or killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just walking around is more dangerous than bicycling. Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with nothing but thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the speed limit on solid pavement, but the airline industry has some rather convincing statistics that mock my fear of heights and the lurid pictures of plane crashes that kill a hundred passengers in an instant. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 10 May 2006 15:27:54 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <idd4621afcdniimp7ktvh8u9np76opf1ga@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNaa > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >In article <87wtcu1efn.fsf@gmail.com>, > > Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: > >> > >> > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet > >> > while pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this > >> > same route, on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the > >> > same speed more often, yet not one person has mentioned I should > >> > be wearing a helmet when I go running. > >> > >> Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get > >> tangled in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be > >> "clipped" by a wing mirror, you are probably running into the > >> traffic as opposed to with it so know exactly whats approaching. > >> Its totally different risk factors with totally different accident > >> results. > > > >According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the > >incidence of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times > >higher than that among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective > >effect, then more benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing > >them than cyclists. > > Dear Tim, > > I was wondering when someone would mention that point. > > Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities next to > the bicycle data. > > The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years, with > neither showing any reaction to massive increases in bicycle helmet > use. That's a good point- there has been no "85%" drop in head injuries among cyclists as helmets have been adopted. And in one country that passed a mandatory helmet law (Australia) the rate of head injuries went up. At the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are effective. > Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously injured or > killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just walking around is > more dangerous than bicycling. > > Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with nothing but > thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the speed limit on solid > pavement, but the airline industry has some rather convincing > statistics that mock my fear of heights and the lurid pictures of > plane crashes that kill a hundred passengers in an instant. While I have no fear of flying per se, I hate to fly because airports suck so very badly.               Date: 10 May 2006 23:46:33 From: Espressopithecus (Java Man) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <timmcn-9117B9.15274910052006@news.iphouse.com >, timmcn@bitstream.net says... > At > the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are > effective. > > And that is about the limit of what can rationally infer from the data. All the other breast-beating is speculation. Rick           Date: 10 May 2006 17:17:10 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes: > In article <87wtcu1efn.fsf@gmail.com>, > Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while >> > pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, >> > on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more >> > often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a >> > helmet when I go running. >> >> Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled >> in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >> mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with >> it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk >> factors with totally different accident results. > > According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence > of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that > among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more > benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists. So what? BTW, do these statistics correctly scale to relevant numbers involved in the "sport" or pastime? e.g everyone is at sometime a pedestrian : only a percentage are cyclists. Regardless, 1) I choose not to wear a helmet 2) I see no facts disproving that a helemt would, in a head collision, offer more protection than nothing at all. --         Date: 10 May 2006 06:28:54 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in >handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it >so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors >with totally different accident results. Totally? People get hit by cars running. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************           Date: 10 May 2006 12:50:17 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > writes: > On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark > <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in >>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it >>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors >>with totally different accident results. > > Totally? People get hit by cars running. Err, I know. But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a straw man.             Date: 10 May 2006 07:53:53 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:50:17 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark >> <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in >>>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >>>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it >>>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors >>>with totally different accident results. >> >> Totally? People get hit by cars running. > >Err, I know. > >But to equate the two is simply ridiculous No. > and attempting to build a >straw man. No -- it's attempting to get people to think about risk more comprehensively.. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************             Date: 10 May 2006 12:04:06 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a > straw man. "Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be expected to usefully work against? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 10 May 2006 13:43:53 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a >> straw man. > > "Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of > similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same > road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk > particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of > head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be > expected to usefully work against? 1) faster 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions 3) higher 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards 5) more prone to slip stream 6) more prone to cross winds Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.                 Date: 10 May 2006 14:21:18 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > 1) faster Runners can easily attain the speeds that are maximum for the bike helmet specification, some runners run faster than some cyclists. > 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions But is Cathy's run on slippery/hazardous roads? There are many instances, especially in winter with road gritting, where the sidewalks are far more slippery than the roadway, so should runners be wearing helmets in winter if they run on the sidewalks? > 3) higher Not much, but depends on the bike. Even onb my bolt-upright Brompton I'm not as tall as a tall friend of mine: should basketball players routinely wear helmets? > 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards > 5) more prone to slip stream > 6) more prone to cross winds I'm prone to all of these but am not in the habit of (a) falling off or (b) banging my head. "More risk" is not the same as "must be acted against". Take two identical women, one in spike stilletos and one in Sensible Shoes. The former is taller and less stable, so according to the "logic" she should be wearing a helmet... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 10 May 2006 10:08:50 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: > >> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling >> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads >> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person >> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running. > > Why would you wear a helmet when running? For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course, since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and then pushed as a solution in search of a problem. > You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been cycling almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that to be a problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you do? > you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing > mirror About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant? The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing by, nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that wearing helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is perceived as "safe"). > Its totally different risk factors > with totally different accident results. Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing worse. I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and falling (a priy cause of ER head injuries) more than runners. Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists: in typical roadgoing use, not much at all. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 10 May 2006 13:04:58 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: >> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling >>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads >>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person >>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running. >> Why would you wear a helmet when running? > > For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar > level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course, eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by drainage grates and gravel etc. > since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running > and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing > one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and > then pushed as a solution in search of a problem. Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage it. They were invented for a reason you know. > >> You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables > > Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms > getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been > cycling almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that > to be a problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you > do? When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when someone just walked out in front of me. Ive had a case where a dog jumped at me and my reactions were to punch the dog as I fell rather than curl up in the foetus and prtect my skull as I crashed to the ground with the pedal jamming into my upper thigh. Not always of course : I dont deal in extremes to support my cause. > >> you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing >> mirror > > About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since > mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant? Are you just being obstinate? The clip of the wing mirror was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a runner would. In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not with it. A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface etc etc etc I wont go on. There is no comparison between running and cycling. Well, minor. > > The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that > encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing > by, nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that > wearing helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is > perceived as "safe"). Anecdotal being the word. There is also evidence which suggests that the helmet is a sign to the driver to consider the fact that flesh and blood is up ahead and needs protecting. Just balancing the books on that one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give you the right of way with a cheery wave. > >> Its totally different risk factors >> with totally different accident results. > > Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors > should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be > much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the > energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are > built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing > worse. I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and > falling (a priy cause of ER head injuries) more than runners. > > Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists: > in typical roadgoing use, not much at all. You clearly have strong views : so do I - I dont wear a helmet because I dont like them and the risks are low since I'm a defensive cyclist of many, many thousands of miles experience. I'm yet to see anything, however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway to safety. Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be anything other than beneficial.             Date: 10 May 2006 14:14:34 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it > doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never > known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains > etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by > drainage grates and gravel etc. What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel then there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment. As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run has ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle? > Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is > ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was > considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage > it. They were invented for a reason you know. Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to B utility road cycling. > When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the > case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe > I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive > certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when > someone just walked out in front of me. I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them saying they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that matter). > Are you just being obstinate? No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb is the safest place to be is even more widespread than the misapprehension that helmets will Save Your Life. > The clip of the wing mirror > was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their > nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a > runner would. No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to positioning. > In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not > with it. "Should" != "Does" > A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more > momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface > etc etc etc I wont go on And will typically skid a little and then continue. A runner's probably more likely to lose their footing, ISTM. > one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head > high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give > you the right of way with a cheery wave. It does that for me, which suggests you're doing something wrong. > I'm yet to see anything, > however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway > to safety. The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use" So now you have. > Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the > curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the > helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be > anything other than beneficial. So how come in every legislature that has increased helmet wearing significantly through mandating their use, there is no apparent improvement in serious head injuries? Never mind the "how", that is what *has* happened. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 10 May 2006 17:21:53 From: Hadron Quark Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > writes: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it >> doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never >> known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains >> etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by >> drainage grates and gravel etc. > > What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're > clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel > then there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment. Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it. > > As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run > has ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle? Where did I suggest that? > >> Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is >> ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was >> considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage >> it. They were invented for a reason you know. > > Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for > cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to > B utility road cycling. You need a tinfoil helemt. > >> When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the >> case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe >> I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive >> certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when >> someone just walked out in front of me. > > I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled > over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them > saying they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that > matter). Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous. > >> Are you just being obstinate? > > No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being > clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were > better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb > is the safest place to be is even more widespread than the > misapprehension that helmets will Save Your Life. Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider real life where not everyone can be in a safe position. > >> The clip of the wing mirror >> was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their >> nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a >> runner would. > > No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to > positioning. Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving goalposts and creating a stir. Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing at all. You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.                 Date: 10 May 2006 21:15:25 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Hadron Quark wrote: > Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to > error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it. Sane, and prone to lapses of judgement as anyone else. However, I'm not stupid enough to blame Fate when it's my fault, and if I'm "clipped by a hedge" then it's my fault. Hedges are stationary and quite visible, thus they are not /too/ hard to avoid. > Where did I suggest that? When you said "And guess what : Ive never known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment" > Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous. No: lots of cyclists use SPuDs or similar, many of them have had at least one fall due to not getting out in time, they don't have a reputation of getting people hurt. > Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider > real life where not everyone can be in a safe position. Let's do that. Let's look at the accident figures for cyclists vs. pedestrians across the whole population. We see the cyclists aren't particularly more prone to getting hurt, and when they do they're slightly less prone to head injuries. So why wear a helmet? > Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving > goalposts and creating a stir. No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I, and many cyclists of my aquaintance, do not make a habit of falling off our bikes when overtaken or subject to cross winds. You may wobble a little, but do you actually fall off that often? > Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing > at all. So why is there no change in serious head injuries as helmet wearing rates rise anywhere you look at whole populations? > You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist > should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont > wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either. But we're looking at whole populations, which take into account every cyclist, the good ones, the bad ones, and the ones in between. If helmets helped then the head injury rates would come down as helmet wearing went up. It doesn't, anywhere you want to look where there's data. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 10 May 2006 07:57:18 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:04:58 +0200, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com > wrote: >Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes: > >> Hadron Quark wrote: >>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling >>>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads >>>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person >>>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running. >>> Why would you wear a helmet when running? >> >> For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar >> level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course, > >eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it >doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never >known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains >etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by >drainage grates and gravel etc. I won't comment on runners specifically, but in my country tens of thousands of pedestrians of all sorts are hit by cars and many thousands are killed each year. And many people are afraid to walk along suburban and rural roads because of the danger of cars hitting them. Some cyclists feel the same way too. So, in terms of general safety regarding cars, there are a lot of related issues regarding people on foot and on bikes. To claim they are completely unrelated is bizarre. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 09 May 2006 19:43:43 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Per Cathy Kearns: >To me it seems that a helmet would save your head in any fall, whether there >is a bike in the vicinity or not. It would help on stairs, in showers, in >car crashes, all of which have more injuries per capita than bicycles. So, >if it's so commonsensical, why aren't people wearing helmets whenever they >get off the couch? I can't prove it, but I believe that a helmet would save my life it I fell in such a way that the side of my head were slapped into a 3" pointed pyramid-shaped outcropping sticking up from the ground around it. I don't expect such outcroppings or other rocks on the stairs, in showers, or in my car - so I'd never think of wearing a helmet there. Similarly, when I'm riding in conditions where rocks aren't an issue, I may or may not bother with my helmet - mostly depending on weather and my mood... I cite that particular example because having my head slapped on the ground hard enough to knock me out - but a few inches clear of such an outcropping - was what got me wearing a helmet after heaven-only-knows how many thousand miles of road riding with the wind in my hair. -- PeteCresswell   Date: 08 May 2006 15:38:29 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? NYC XYZ wrote: > > Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if > they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always > suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that > mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point > of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't > see the contradiction in that! Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets. Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again, whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make both Bell and Giro helmets). Chalo Colina   Date: 08 May 2006 14:39:43 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty. tin Borsje wrote: > > > The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet..... > > > -- > Posted by news://news.nb.nu   Date: 08 May 2006 14:37:33 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: > > > No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with > the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly > hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside > cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of > claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The > materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment > they're normally used. > > But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in > normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it > would probably melt. Don't do that. > > As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those > are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect > lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been > able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are > keted as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with > protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in > general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something, > anything, and claim it will make you safer. > > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Um, I doubt they'd get away with a disclaimer which disavows the intended use of the product!   Date: 08 May 2006 14:26:21 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? More wife, less usenet. Problem solved. Two cents, please. Paul Hobson wrote: > > > Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the crap out of me. It boggles my mind that > people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That > said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or > rec.bikes.ketplace. > > Maybe they do. Who knows? > \\paul   Date: 08 May 2006 14:25:46 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? More wife, less usenet. Problem solved. Two cents, please. Paul Hobson wrote: > > > Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the crap out of me. It boggles my mind that > people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That > said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or > rec.bikes.ketplace. > > Maybe they do. Who knows? > \\paul   Date: 08 May 2006 11:54:44 From: Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Matt O'Toole wrote: > > Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all > seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to > the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades, > and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of > exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural > plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So > the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth > worrying about. I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a problem. OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell." The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet) caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the rest was fragile. I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become convinced the magic had leaked out. Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named the company, and it was just a rek in passing. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 08 May 2006 22:33:31 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1147114484.433238.184140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Matt O'Toole wrote: > > > > Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all > > seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to > > the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades, > > and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of > > exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural > > plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So > > the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth > > worrying about. > > I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a > problem. > > OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell." > The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to > have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any > case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet) > caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the > rest was fragile. > > I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the > broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet > looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new > helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become > convinced the magic had leaked out. > > Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP > position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because > he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV > exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named > the company, and it was just a rek in passing. And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at best. GG > > - Frank Krygowski >       Date: 10 May 2006 04:53:23 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "GaryG" <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com > wrote in message news:rPV7g.324$227.1@fe04.lga... > > And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the > issues"??? > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at > best. Well, the San Jose Mercury printed a story many years ago from the Director of Advertising for Specialized helmets and he was laughing and said that they had a tiny advertsing budget because the safety freaks were more than happy to spend all their own money to promote helmets.     Date: 08 May 2006 19:22:34 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Matt O'Toole wrote: >> >> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've >> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from >> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around >> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets >> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that. >> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the >> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well >> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about. > > I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a > problem. > > OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell." > The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to > have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any > case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet) > caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the > rest was fragile. > > I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the > broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet > looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new > helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become > convinced the magic had leaked out. > > Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his > VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) > because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to > degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. > He never named the company, and it was just a rek in passing. "She dropped the helmet from about three feet." How convenient!       Date: 08 May 2006 20:46:53 From: Tom Kunich Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com > wrote in message news:_TM7g.9183$Nk3.2545@tornado.socal.rr.com... > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>> >>> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've >>> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from >>> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around >>> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets >>> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that. >>> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the >>> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well >>> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about. >> >> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a >> problem. >> >> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell." >> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to >> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any >> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet) >> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the >> rest was fragile. >> >> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the >> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet >> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new >> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become >> convinced the magic had leaked out. >> >> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his >> VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) >> because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to >> degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. >> He never named the company, and it was just a rek in passing. > > "She dropped the helmet from about three feet." > > How convenient! I've seen the same thing. 3' just happens to be the approximate height of the helmet if you sit it on the handlebars as some riders do or hook it over the lever.   Date: 08 May 2006 17:29:18 From: Werehatrack Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On 8 May 2006 06:15:09 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote: > >Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so >far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding >comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me >over yet or kicked me out. =) <mode="snarky" > Shouldn't that be <=) now? No, wait, it's a Giro, make it {=) >Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only >wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just >for the heck of it! Mantra: This will not prevent STDs. Oh, wait, it will prevent the *cause* of STDs. Unless she's...no, let's not go there. >Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head >warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after >all...). =D Damn, that's more than I've paid for every bike helmet I've ever had, altogether. >Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading >manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all >Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or >indirect heat might damage the helmet. Giro is reportedly owned by Bell. Such exactness is therefore expected. Or else, obviously, the only safe way to store or use the helmet is in the absence of heat, i.e. at 0 K, which would necessitate that the wearer would need to be similarly cool-headed. Perhaps this could afford us the opportunity to investigate Niven's postulate that the brain might become a superconductor at that temp. Inquiring minds want to know! >Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? If you're in the habit or parking under magnifying glasses, quite possibly. >Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they >aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of >the styrofoam's molecular structure??? This message brought to you by the keting department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. >(Materials Science is such an >interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron >Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to >come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and >then manipulating subatomic physics!) Sigh. >I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt... I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either." Really, I will. I promise. >but this Giro Roc Loc >4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. I -do not- want to know what you were doing when you wrote that. In fact, I am reasonably certain that I actively want to -not know- what you were doing, and have a strong interest in failing to investigate whether that is an accurate perception. >Just funny to think >that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to >direct sunlight! Oh, the opportunities. </mode > (regrettably, I am unable to find an example of a "rolling the eyes and shaking the head" smiley.) Remember: The important part of the helmet is the part on your head, not the box or the propaganda. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.     Date: 08 May 2006 18:31:34 From: Neil Brooks Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? What scares me most here is the near certainty that I'm the only one who's reminded of that old Terry Jacks song; We had joy We had fun We had helmets in the sun... Man ... was that song a bag of downers or what?   Date: 08 May 2006 16:13:15 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? > Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading > manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all > Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or > indirect heat might damage the helmet. > > Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment they're normally used. But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it would probably melt. Don't do that. As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are keted as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something, anything, and claim it will make you safer. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1147094109.207409.107070@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so > far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding > comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me > over yet or kicked me out. =) > > Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only > wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just > for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head > warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after > all...). =D > > Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading > manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all > Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or > indirect heat might damage the helmet. > > Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? > > Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they > aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of > the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an > interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron > Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to > come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and > then manipulating subatomic physics!) > > I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc > 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think > that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to > direct sunlight! >   Date: 08 May 2006 11:48:05 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Mon, 08 May 2006 06:15:09 -0700, NYC XYZ wrote: > Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading > manuals with his cereal?? You're supposed to read the cereal box. > Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they > aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of > the styrofoam's molecular structure??? The helmet manufacturers would love you to think that. For me, it's so hard to get one that fits that I wear it until the straps decompose. Which, last time, was only a couple years. -- David L. Johnson __o     Date: 08 May 2006 20:12:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87qu529s6655ul8qkkslav1li901voshis@4ax.com... > On Sun, 7 May 2006 21:18:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>There is no reason why bikes can't be on forestry roads and fire roads. >>They >>will do no damage there and will not interfere with my solitary hikes, the >>latter being by far the more important consideration. > > The priy "damage" that all vehicles do is that they make it easier > for humans to get into wildlife habitat. We can't keep everyone out, > but it is good to minimize human presence in wildlife habitat, for the > sake & protection of the wildlife. Banning vehicles from natural areas > is the most humane and practical way to do that. Agreed! I hate all those g.d. jeep roads especially. They are also called 4-wheel drive roads. My God, is there no end to the insanity. Bottom line, we humans are the laziest slobs in existence due to our technologies. The motor vehicle has totally ruined this country. Sometimes I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon. That would get the slobs out of their confounded motor vehicles. The internal combustion engine is actually the infernal combustion engine - a true work of the Devil! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 09 May 2006 02:06:08 From: Mike Vandeman Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness On Mon, 8 May 2006 20:12:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >news:87qu529s6655ul8qkkslav1li901voshis@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 7 May 2006 21:18:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >> wrote: >[...] >>>There is no reason why bikes can't be on forestry roads and fire roads. >>>They >>>will do no damage there and will not interfere with my solitary hikes, the >>>latter being by far the more important consideration. >> >> The priy "damage" that all vehicles do is that they make it easier >> for humans to get into wildlife habitat. We can't keep everyone out, >> but it is good to minimize human presence in wildlife habitat, for the >> sake & protection of the wildlife. Banning vehicles from natural areas >> is the most humane and practical way to do that. > >Agreed! I hate all those g.d. jeep roads especially. They are also called >4-wheel drive roads. My God, is there no end to the insanity. > >Bottom line, we humans are the laziest slobs in existence due to our >technologies. The motor vehicle has totally ruined this country. Sometimes I >hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon. That would get the slobs out >of their confounded motor vehicles. The internal combustion engine is >actually the infernal combustion engine - a true work of the Devil! > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Then this may interest you: SKID KS ISSUE #104, May 8, 2006 Skid ks, Wildlands CPR’s monthly e-mail newsletter, reports on activist efforts to challenge roads and motorized recreation nationwide. Skid ks shares instructive and precedent-setting successes and failures in the campaign to halt motorized abuse of wildland systems. --- 1. PROPOSED OFF-ROAD USE ALONG ALASKA’S DALTON HIGHWAY STRUCK DOWN 2. PLAN TO REOPEN FLORIDA FOREST TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLES REJECTED 3. DISPUTE CONTINUES OVER ROAD CLAIMS IN NEVADA 4. NEW OFF-ROAD VEHICLE REGULATIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA 5. SCOTTISH PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO PROTECT DUNES FROM OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 6. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RESTRICTS OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE 7. 25 BIGHORN SHEEP KILLED ON MONTANA HIGHWAY --- 1. PROPOSED OFF-ROAD USE ALONG ALASKA’S DALTON HIGHWAY STRUCK DOWN A bill that would have opened the land along Alaska’s Dalton Highway to off-road vehicle use died in the Alaska Legislature May 2nd. Members of the House Transportation Committee failed to move the bill out of committee on a 3-2 vote. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Seekins (R-Fairbanks), would have seasonally allowed off-road vehicles and snowmachines in the area. The proposal generated firm opposition among a broad swath of Alaska interests. Among the critics were the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the North Slope Borough and the Alaska Trucking Association. There was great concern that motorized use in the area would have negative effects on wildlife, and could create dangerous conditions for truckers using the road. Part of the land in question is owned by the North Slope Borough, whose spokesman, David Harding said, “(Opening access) will go directly against a memorandum of understanding between (former) Gov. Hammond and former North Slope Borough Mayor Eben Hopson signed in 1980.” Similar proposals have been submitted in Alaska several times before, without success. The proposal’s sponsor vowed to resurrect the bill next year. "This isn't over. It's just another round," Seekins said. "We're going to keep trying until all Alaska is available to all Alaskans." A representative that voted against the bill pointed out that people are already allowed to walk, ski or use dogpower to access the area. "It's currently accessible to all Alaskans, just not with ATVs and off-road vehicles," said Rep. y Kapsner, D-Bethel. --- 2. PLAN TO REOPEN FLORIDA FOREST TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLES REJECTED A plan submitted by Florida’s Southwest Division of Forestry to again allow off-road vehicle use in Southern Golden Gate Estates has been rejected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan also generated criticism from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 55,000-acre Estates area, located in southern Florida, is part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan intended to mitigate some of the damage inflicted to the Everglades for decades. The project is overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. The rejected plan called for the opening of at least 12 miles of trails to off-road recreation, which the Corps of Engineers deemed inconsistent with its stated goal of restoring a semblance of ecological health to the area. Other proposals such as a shooting range and cattle grazing were similarly rejected. The sensitive area has been closed to off-road vehicle use for some time, but was in the past a haven for off-road motorists and gun enthusiasts. The submission of a subsequent compromise plan is expected. --- 3. DISPUTE CONTINUES OVER ROAD CLAIMS IN NEVADA A federal ruling expected this summer on a Nevada road claim case could set an important precedent in the settlement of hundreds of similar disputes across the West. Elko County claims ownership of the South Canyon Road based on R.S. 2477, an obscure civil war-era statute that granted counties the right to construct roads across federal lands not reserved for other uses. The road is located within the reserved Humboldt-Toyiabe National Forest. The county contends that prospectors, sheep herders and American Indians used the road near the Idaho line years before the national forest was created, which would give the county a right of way under R.S. 2477. The Forest Service disagrees, and cites historic maps, survey records, newspaper clippings and personal accounts written nearly a century ago that suggest no real road existed before June 1909. The contentious issue in Elko County is whether the county should be granted a right of way along the road. The area is home to the southernmost bull trout population in the country, a fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. The road is a source of eroding sediment, which impacts the bull trout in the Jarbidge River. The dispute dates to 1995 when a flood washed out a section of the South Canyon Road that leads from the town of Jarbidge to federally protected wilderness in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Forest Service effectively closed the road after the county illegally reconstructed it in 1998. The river's population of bull trout was declared threatened in 1999. In 2003, the Forest Service and the county agreed that the agency would not challenge the county’s road claim if the county sought agency approval for any road improvements to its plans, such as amplified motorized access. In 2005, the Forest Service officially re-opened all but the last 4/10ths of a mile of the road. Environmental groups, including The Wilderness Society and Great Old Broads for Wilderness won a temporary injunction against the settlement, arguing that the Forest Service broke a number of environmental laws when it gave away its authority over the land. Now, the county and the Forest Service would like to see their agreement re-instated. A U.S. District judge in Reno is expected to issue a final decision this summer. --- 4. NEW OFF-ROAD VEHICLE REGULATIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA The Canadian province of Nova Scotia has implemented new off-road vehicle rules, including more stringent fines and training requirements as a result of changes to the Off-highway Vehicles Act. The regulations are an attempt to make off-road vehicle recreation safer, particularly for children. Off-road vehicle riders have between six months and six years, depending on age, to obtain new safety certifications. Children under 14 and their accompanying parents must complete classes by October 1, 2007. Children are only permitted to ride on a closed course, must wear protective equipment, and must be under the direct supervision of a parent of guardian. They must also have a medical first responder and an adult with off-road vehicle training present, and the size of the vehicle used must be recommended by the manufacturer. Fines for off-road vehicle malfeasance have increased, and are now between $250 and $2000. Riders must pay to register their vehicles, and pay for the mandatory safety courses. There will also be various user fees associated with off-road vehicle recreation in Nova Scotia. Natural Resources Minister Brooke Taylor said, “The days are gone when a parent can buy a high-powered ATV and simply hand over the keys to children. Riding is a privilege; with it comes responsibility.” The new regulations have been criticized by some officials, who feel the changes are not significant enough to impact the problem. Concerns have also been raised about the capacity of the province to enforce the rules, with only 12 officers policing off-road vehicle use in a large province containing vast tracts of wilderness. --- 5. SCOTTISH PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO PROTECT DUNES FROM OFF-ROAD VEHICLES A group of government agencies and community groups in northeastern Scotland have joined forces to launch a new program, Operation Dune Watch, aimed at protecting sensitive coastal dune habitat from accelerating damage inflicted by off-road vehicles. Significant ecological harm and erosion have been found along local coasts, a consequence of the significant increase in off-road vehicle use in the country. Some Off-road motorists are driving on private coastal property, without consent of the landowner. Area police are receiving more and more complaints of unauthorized, dangerous off-road vehicle use. Many of the vulnerable Scottish dune areas are under legal protection from motorized recreation, but until now, the rules have been largely un-enforced. During Operation Dune Watch, off-road drivers committing offenses could find their vehicles seized, face arrest, or be judged in a criminal court. Groups involved with the project include the North Aberdeenshire police, the Aberdeenshire Council, and Scottish Natural Heritage. Also participating is the Buchan Off-road Motorcycle Club, which seeks to establish a designated, regulated facility where off-road driving could occur with less damage to the land. --- 6. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RESTRICTS OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE San Bernardino County supervisors have voted unanimously to enact new restrictions on off-road vehicle recreation, which has become an increasing problem in the area. The new regulations require off-road vehicle drivers to obtain written permission from property owners before using their land, and a temporary event permit is needed for groups of ten riders or more. Off-road vehicles must also comply with state noise pollution standards. New fines range from $200 for a first offense to $500 for a third offense within three years. A fourth offense in three years would be considered a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both. Nearby Riverside County also has new off-road vehicle regulations, which make off-road use illegal on private property in unincorporated areas except between noon and 5 p.m. --- 7. 25 BIGHORN SHEEP KILLED ON MONTANA HIGHWAY At least 25 Bighorn sheep have been killed since January in a construction zone on Montana’s Highway 200. This is more than twice the average number of sheep killed by vehicles in an entire year, according to state wildlife officials, and does not include sheep fatally injured by vehicles that were able to walk away from the road. In early spring, female sheep from the Thompson Falls herd and their young gather near the highway to eat the new vegetation that emerges along roads. Officials attribute the unusual number of deaths to the extended construction zone, which has reduced opportunities for wildlife to safely cross the highway due to lengthy traffic jams and frustrated, speeding drivers. Bruce Sterling, a biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks said, “The population is strong enough so that it can withstand it, but if we were to continue to lose that many that would reduce reproduction and recruitment.” --- “Skid ks” comes to you compliments of Wildlands CPR. We’re a non-profit conservation organization working to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by promoting road removal, preventing new wildland road construction, and limiting motorized recreation. If you’re not already a member, consider joining Wildlands CPR’s growing grassroots network. You’ll find membership information and a wealth of road and off-road vehicle resources at our website, www.wildlandscpr.org. To view past issues of Skid ks, visit: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/newsletters/Skid_ks/index.html#archivedskidks. Please keep in touch with us about your roads and motorized recreation work and send your e-mail action alerts to skidks@wildlandscpr.org. Questions about Skid ks should also be directed to skidks@wildlandscpr.org. TO SUBSCRIBE: Send an e-mail to: subscribe@wildlandscpr.org with the word “subscribe” in the subject or body. _______________________________________________ Skidks mailing list Skidks@wildlandscpr.org === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande         Date: 10 May 2006 02:14:34 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:o5uv52tshqjcnqfrob2pvn5hej5kh4rg56@4ax.com... > On Mon, 8 May 2006 20:12:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>news:87qu529s6655ul8qkkslav1li901voshis@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 21:18:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >>> wrote: >>[...] >>>>There is no reason why bikes can't be on forestry roads and fire roads. >>>>They >>>>will do no damage there and will not interfere with my solitary hikes, >>>>the >>>>latter being by far the more important consideration. >>> >>> The priy "damage" that all vehicles do is that they make it easier >>> for humans to get into wildlife habitat. We can't keep everyone out, >>> but it is good to minimize human presence in wildlife habitat, for the >>> sake & protection of the wildlife. Banning vehicles from natural areas >>> is the most humane and practical way to do that. >> >>Agreed! I hate all those g.d. jeep roads especially. They are also called >>4-wheel drive roads. My God, is there no end to the insanity. >> >>Bottom line, we humans are the laziest slobs in existence due to our >>technologies. The motor vehicle has totally ruined this country. Sometimes >>I >>hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon. That would get the slobs out >>of their confounded motor vehicles. The internal combustion engine is >>actually the infernal combustion engine - a true work of the Devil! >> >>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>aka >>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > Then this may interest you: > > SKID KS ISSUE #104, May 8, 2006 > > Skid ks, Wildlands CPR's monthly e-mail newsletter, reports on > activist > efforts to challenge roads and motorized recreation nationwide. Skid > ks shares instructive and precedent-setting successes and failures > in > the campaign to halt motorized abuse of wildland systems. > > --- > > 1. PROPOSED OFF-ROAD USE ALONG ALASKA'S DALTON HIGHWAY STRUCK DOWN > 2. PLAN TO REOPEN FLORIDA FOREST TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLES REJECTED > 3. DISPUTE CONTINUES OVER ROAD CLAIMS IN NEVADA > 4. NEW OFF-ROAD VEHICLE REGULATIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA > 5. SCOTTISH PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO PROTECT DUNES FROM OFF-ROAD VEHICLES > 6. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RESTRICTS OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE > 7. 25 BIGHORN SHEEP KILLED ON MONTANA HIGHWAY [...] All the above is very interesting. Only total slobs want to drive their vehicles of whatever nature off-road. In addition, there is nothing more destructive of a natural scene than a road designed to give access to a remote area. We already have more than enough roads in his country and we do not want or need anymore. It is just the slobs that want them for their so-called fun. The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I would have used it on him. I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 23 May 2006 12:12:39 From: John Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in news:SYWdnaPC84lDD_zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com: > > "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:o5uv52tshqjcnqfrob2pvn5hej5kh4rg56@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 8 May 2006 20:12:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>news:87qu529s6655ul8qkkslav1li901voshis@4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 21:18:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >>>> wrote: >>>[...] >>>>>There is no reason why bikes can't be on forestry roads and fire >>>>>roads. They >>>>>will do no damage there and will not interfere with my solitary >>>>>hikes, the >>>>>latter being by far the more important consideration. >>>> >>>> The priy "damage" that all vehicles do is that they make it >>>> easier for humans to get into wildlife habitat. We can't keep >>>> everyone out, but it is good to minimize human presence in wildlife >>>> habitat, for the sake & protection of the wildlife. Banning >>>> vehicles from natural areas is the most humane and practical way to >>>> do that. >>> >>>Agreed! I hate all those g.d. jeep roads especially. They are also >>>called 4-wheel drive roads. My God, is there no end to the insanity. >>> >>>Bottom line, we humans are the laziest slobs in existence due to our >>>technologies. The motor vehicle has totally ruined this country. >>>Sometimes I >>>hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon. That would get the >>>slobs out of their confounded motor vehicles. The internal combustion >>>engine is actually the infernal combustion engine - a true work of >>>the Devil! >>> >>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>>aka >>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> Then this may interest you: >> >> SKID KS ISSUE #104, May 8, 2006 >> >> Skid ks, Wildlands CPR's monthly e-mail newsletter, reports on >> activist >> efforts to challenge roads and motorized recreation nationwide. Skid >> ks shares instructive and precedent-setting successes and failures >> in >> the campaign to halt motorized abuse of wildland systems. >> >> --- >> >> 1. PROPOSED OFF-ROAD USE ALONG ALASKA'S DALTON HIGHWAY STRUCK DOWN >> 2. PLAN TO REOPEN FLORIDA FOREST TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLES REJECTED >> 3. DISPUTE CONTINUES OVER ROAD CLAIMS IN NEVADA >> 4. NEW OFF-ROAD VEHICLE REGULATIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA >> 5. SCOTTISH PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO PROTECT DUNES FROM OFF-ROAD VEHICLES >> 6. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RESTRICTS OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE >> 7. 25 BIGHORN SHEEP KILLED ON MONTANA HIGHWAY > [...] > > All the above is very interesting. Only total slobs want to drive > their vehicles of whatever nature off-road. In addition, there is > nothing more destructive of a natural scene than a road designed to > give access to a remote area. We already have more than enough roads > in his country and we do not want or need anymore. It is just the > slobs that want them for their so-called fun. > > The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling > across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I would > have used it on him. > > I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one > thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. > I cant wait for gas to go to $100/gallon, then the fools in Minnesota wont be able to drive/fly here to ruin out beautiful Colorado. Chris Foster Colorado Native > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***             Date: 24 May 2006 00:10:48 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "John" <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:Xns97CC48EC94255johnfosterineroeyaho@66.150.105.47... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in > news:SYWdnaPC84lDD_zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com: [...] >> All the above is very interesting. Only total slobs want to drive >> their vehicles of whatever nature off-road. In addition, there is >> nothing more destructive of a natural scene than a road designed to >> give access to a remote area. We already have more than enough roads >> in his country and we do not want or need anymore. It is just the >> slobs that want them for their so-called fun. >> >> The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling >> across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I would >> have used it on him. >> >> I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one >> thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. >> > > I cant wait for gas to go to $100/gallon, then the fools in Minnesota > wont be able to drive/fly here to ruin out beautiful Colorado. > > Chris Foster > Colorado Native Colorado being at the heart of the Rocky Mountains no more belongs to those who live there than it does to anyone living anywhere else. It belongs to the nation. Thank God most of it is National Forest and not readily available for private development. By the way, it is never the tourist who ruins a locale, it is ALWAYS the locals who do that. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 24 May 2006 12:20:20 From: Chris Foster Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in news:u6SdnR4ZkPd3d-7ZRVn-tA@prairiewave.com: > > "John" <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Xns97CC48EC94255johnfosterineroeyaho@66.150.105.47... >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in >> news:SYWdnaPC84lDD_zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com: > [...] >>> All the above is very interesting. Only total slobs want to drive >>> their vehicles of whatever nature off-road. In addition, there is >>> nothing more destructive of a natural scene than a road designed to >>> give access to a remote area. We already have more than enough roads >>> in his country and we do not want or need anymore. It is just the >>> slobs that want them for their so-called fun. >>> >>> The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling >>> across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I >>> would have used it on him. >>> >>> I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one >>> thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. >>> >> >> I cant wait for gas to go to $100/gallon, then the fools in >> Minnesota wont be able to drive/fly here to ruin out beautiful >> Colorado. >> >> Chris Foster >> Colorado Native > > Colorado being at the heart of the Rocky Mountains no more belongs to > those who live there than it does to anyone living anywhere else. It > belongs to the nation. Thank God most of it is National Forest and not > readily available for private development. > I agree. But there is lots of gas leases being issued by our wonderful government > By the way, it is never the tourist who ruins a locale, it is ALWAYS > the locals who do that. If that were the case, all tourist traps would be perfect and pristine, they are always trashed. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***                 Date: 25 May 2006 03:03:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Chris Foster" <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:Xns97CD4A39ABF3Fjohnfosterineroeyaho@66.150.105.47... [newsgroups restored] > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in > news:u6SdnR4ZkPd3d-7ZRVn-tA@prairiewave.com: > >> >> "John" <john_foster_in_erie@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns97CC48EC94255johnfosterineroeyaho@66.150.105.47... >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in >>> news:SYWdnaPC84lDD_zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com: >> [...] >>>> All the above is very interesting. Only total slobs want to drive >>>> their vehicles of whatever nature off-road. In addition, there is >>>> nothing more destructive of a natural scene than a road designed to >>>> give access to a remote area. We already have more than enough roads >>>> in his country and we do not want or need anymore. It is just the >>>> slobs that want them for their so-called fun. >>>> >>>> The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling >>>> across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I >>>> would have used it on him. >>>> >>>> I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one >>>> thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. >>>> >>> >>> I cant wait for gas to go to $100/gallon, then the fools in >>> Minnesota wont be able to drive/fly here to ruin out beautiful >>> Colorado. >>> >>> Chris Foster >>> Colorado Native >> >> Colorado being at the heart of the Rocky Mountains no more belongs to >> those who live there than it does to anyone living anywhere else. It >> belongs to the nation. Thank God most of it is National Forest and not >> readily available for private development. >> > > I agree. But there is lots of gas leases being issued by our wonderful > government > >> By the way, it is never the tourist who ruins a locale, it is ALWAYS >> the locals who do that. > > If that were the case, all tourist traps would be perfect and pristine, > they are always trashed. There are literally dozens of resort towns in the Rocky Mountains that live off of tourists. Aspen comes immediately to mind, but there are many others. Aspen is not trashed as far as I could see. It is very expensive to stay there and that keeps the hoi-polloi out. However, there are plenty of low wage workers who service the tourists and they may be the trashers that you are concerned about. I notice that the service workers cannot even live in Aspen. Instead, they are in trailer villages many miles removed from Aspen, usually hidden away in a canyon where they won't be noticed. Only millionaires and very well-to-do tourists can afford to stay in Aspen. But in any event, it is the locals who develop the tourist traps for their own purposes. A tourist is just a visitor and has no stake at all in the resort. Aspen does not even exist for me unless I am there. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota             Date: 23 May 2006 13:52:53 From: Dan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness >> >> The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling >> across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I would >> have used it on him. >> >> I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one >> thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. >> > > I cant wait for gas to go to $100/gallon, then the fools in Minnesota > wont be able to drive/fly here to ruin out beautiful Colorado. > > Chris Foster > Colorado Native > > > >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> >> > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** I'll be glad when arguments over mountain biking are no longer cross-posted in the Recumbent newsgroup...               Date: 24 May 2006 00:44:46 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Dan" <dbhbmw@comcast.net > wrote in message news:e4vibd$8l1$1@news.ums.edu... Edward Dolan wrote: >>> The worst thing I ever saw was an off-road motorcyclist barreling >>> across a high alpine meadow region. I think if I had had a gun I would >>> have used it on him. >>> >>> I hope the price of gas goes to $100. a gallon as that is the one >>> thing that will bring the insanity to a halt. [...] > I'll be glad when arguments over mountain biking are no longer > cross-posted in the Recumbent newsgroup... Why is that? We are getting some fresh input from others. Mountain biking on hiking trails is a very controversial thing and it needs to be discussed on every cycling forum, except for the technical and racing groups. Of course, we could be having threads on helmets and other such nonsense. Would that suit you better? I am trying to broaden the topics on ARBR so that we don't all die from terminal boredom. ARBR, always a very small group, was effectively destroyed a couple of winters ago by a criminal vandal troll. The cowardice displayed by most of the ARBR regulars was astonishing. Most of the members got disgusted and drifted away to greener pastures. ARBR has never recovered from that assault. I, along with NYC and some others, are trying to restore ARBR to its' former glory days. In any event, there is nothing taking place on ARBR that prevents you from posting whatever your little heart desires to talk about. I NEVER interfere with on-topic posts (unless they become incredibly stupid). Take a look at RBM. They have literally dozens of threads going every day. It is like a smorgasbord. You can pick and choose what you want to read and what you want to respond to. That is the way ARBR should be too. Instead, we have nothing but warmed over death on ARBR. This is crazy as recumbents are the greatest invention of all time. Our group should be a beacon to all the other groups. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 09 May 2006 02:12:21 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness Mike Vandeman wrote: > Then this may interest you: > > SKID KS ISSUE #104, May 8, 2006 Wipe more carefully and try some pre-wash soaking, Do(r)c. HTH, BS     Date: 08 May 2006 20:02:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Ed Dolan on the Uses of Wilderness "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87qu529s6655ul8qkkslav1li901voshis@4ax.com... > On Sun, 7 May 2006 21:18:47 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>There is no reason why bikes can't be on forestry roads and fire roads. >>They >>will do no damage there and will not interfere with my solitary hikes, the >>latter being by far the more important consideration. > > The priy "damage" that all vehicles do is that they make it easier > for humans to get into wildlife habitat. We can't keep everyone out, > but it is good to minimize human presence in wildlife habitat, for the > sake & protection of the wildlife. Banning vehicles from natural areas > is the most humane and practical way to do that. > === > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to > humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 > years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) > > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande   Date: 08 May 2006 07:48:14 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? NYC XYZ wrote: > UseNet via Cable Modem wrote: > > > > > > By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get > > sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your > > closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from > > you wearing it during the summer. > > > > -- > > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the > > newsgroups if possible). > > > That's the thing -- the exact wording is "direct or indirect heat" -- > which I take to mean sunlight as well, and UV exposure in particular. > > Just seems an astounding fine-print, if I'm reading this correctly! I > mean, we're talking about the most critical piece of safety equipment > for an activity that generally takes place at daytime in summer.... Uh, no...."the most critical piece of safety equipment" sits behind your eyes and between your ears. Always take it with you, wherever you go, whatever you do.   Date: 08 May 2006 10:46:00 From: dvt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: /Don't excessively cross-post/ * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group at a time, in the same post. * If a message truly belongs in multiple groups, by all means cross-post. In fact it is better to cross-post than to post the same message separately to different groups. * Be careful when replying to a post. The initial post may have been inappropriately cross-posted; if you do not edit the list of newsgroups, your reply will also be inappropriately cross-posted. * Consider setting "followups" to one group. Your post may be relevant to 3 groups, but you can set followups to one group and then the discussion will continue there. When using the followup header, it is nice to put in the message somewhere "Followups set." And from http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html: /Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups/ Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a posting appearing in multiple newsgroups. NYCXYZ, please stop cross-posting or at least set the Followup-to for one group. Thanks. The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group that I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion.     Date: 08 May 2006 15:30:06 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? {newsgroups restored} dvt wrote: > From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: > > /Don't excessively cross-post/ > > * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group > at a time, in the same post. > * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means > cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same > message separately to different groups. {italics added} HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in which it was...cast. By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom. Bill "and no, sarcams ain't no typo" S. > The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group > that I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion. What a oon...       Date: 08 May 2006 13:36:17 From: Paul Hobson Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > {newsgroups restored} > > dvt wrote: > >>From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: >> >>/Don't excessively cross-post/ >> >> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group >>at a time, in the same post. > > >> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means >>cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same >>message separately to different groups. {italics added} > > > HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? > > While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in > which it was...cast. > > By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the > others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom. > > Bill "and no, sarcams ain't no typo" S. Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the crap out of me. It boggles my mind that people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or rec.bikes.ketplace. Maybe they do. Who knows? \\paul         Date: 08 May 2006 18:33:41 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Paul Hobson wrote: > Sorni wrote: >> {newsgroups restored} >> >> dvt wrote: >> >>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: >>> >>> /Don't excessively cross-post/ >>> >>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one >>> group at a time, in the same post. >> >> >>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means >>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the >>> same message separately to different groups. {italics added} >> >> >> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? >> >> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the >> groups in which it was...cast. >> >> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, >> people in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop >> sarcams mode} wisdom. Bill "and no, sarcams ain't no typo" S. > > Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the crap out of me. It boggles my mind that > people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That > said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech > or rec.bikes.ketplace. > > Maybe they do. Who knows? Well, I agree about tech sorta -- but you must be aware of the raging lid wars going on right now there?       Date: 08 May 2006 13:41:16 From: dvt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > dvt wrote: >> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: >> >> /Don't excessively cross-post/ >> >> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group >> at a time, in the same post. > >> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means >> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the >> same message separately to different groups. {italics added} > > HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? r.b.ketplace, which was trimmed from this message. > While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the > groups in which it was...cast. No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other, more pertinent parts of my post. > By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people > in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams > mode} wisdom. > What a oon... Thanks, Bill. -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu         Date: 08 May 2006 17:53:14 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? dvt wrote: > Sorni wrote: >> dvt wrote: >>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: >>> >>> /Don't excessively cross-post/ >>> >>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group >>> at a time, in the same post. >>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means >>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the >>> same message separately to different groups. {italics added} >> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? > r.b.ketplace, which was trimmed from this message. They don't sell helmets among other cycling accessories on there? (Newsgroup restored so no one missed this vital discussion.) And why did you trim the OTHER groups? >> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the >> groups in which it was...cast. > No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other, > more pertinent parts of my post. But you yourself posted the above /exception/ to the rest of your post, making it moot. Did you READ what you posted?!? >> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people >> in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams >> mode} wisdom. > >> What a oon... > Thanks, Bill. Don't mention it :-D           Date: 15 May 2006 09:48:35 From: dvt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > dvt wrote: >> Sorni wrote: >>> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? > >> r.b.ketplace, which was trimmed from this message. > > They don't sell helmets among other cycling accessories on there? > (Newsgroup restored so no one missed this vital discussion.) And why did > you trim the OTHER groups? Sorry for the delay.. I've been busy. Show me where the OP was buying or selling anything in the root of this thread. -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu       Date: 08 May 2006 13:36:19 From: dvt Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sorni wrote: > dvt wrote: >> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html: >> >> /Don't excessively cross-post/ >> >> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group >> at a time, in the same post. > >> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means >> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same >> message separately to different groups. {italics added} > > HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate??? r.b.ketplace. > While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in > which it was...cast. No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other, more pertinent parts of my post. > By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the > others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom. > What a oon... Thanks, Bill. -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu   Date: 08 May 2006 07:37:20 From: Tom Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? The "shelf life" of a helmet is VERY long. While sun and UV lights do degrade a helmet, this degradation is very slow and only effects the surface layers. Over time the foam does change it's characteristics but that changes appear to be a wash as far as protection ability of the helmet. That being said a helmet offers almost no protection. Do NOT be fooled into thinking that a helmet will protect your head in all but the very slightest of accidents. While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Wear a helmet if you prefer but don't let it take the place of intelligent riding. Don't run stop signs. Always ride on the correct side of the road. Remember that riding with others is perhaps the most dangerous part of a ride since touching wheels will take you down faster than anything else.     Date: 09 May 2006 01:20:19 From: Sid Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Sid       Date: 09 May 2006 01:23:29 From: Sorni Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Sid wrote: {somone else wrote} >> While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should >> probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head >> against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of >> a helmet. > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit > my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common sense after a while.) HTH, BS   Date: 08 May 2006 07:35:01 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? UseNet via Cable Modem wrote: > > > By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get > sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your > closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from > you wearing it during the summer. > > -- > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the > newsgroups if possible). That's the thing -- the exact wording is "direct or indirect heat" -- which I take to mean sunlight as well, and UV exposure in particular. Just seems an astounding fine-print, if I'm reading this correctly! I mean, we're talking about the most critical piece of safety equipment for an activity that generally takes place at daytime in summer....   Date: 08 May 2006 07:32:18 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > > > Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents, > lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat. > > In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be > light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet > that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it. > > GG The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment -- CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict the very purpose of the product!     Date: 08 May 2006 22:37:44 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1147098738.039034.28370@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > GaryG wrote: > > > > > > Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents, > > lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat. > > > > In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be > > light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet > > that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it. > > > > GG > > > The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment -- > CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply > from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of > all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in > daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict > the very purpose of the product! Are you a dumbass, or just a troll? Exposure to sunlight during normal use is not the same thing as leaving a helmet on the dash of a car with the windows rolled up. Babies and helmets can be exposed to the former, but will perish in the latter. It's really not that difficult to see the difference. GG   Date: 08 May 2006 06:48:40 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ken C. M. wrote: > NYC XYZ wrote: > > > Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin > plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it > sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged > by those blasted UV rays also. > > Ken > -- > New cycling jersey: $49 > new cycling shorts: $39 > Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless. Yes, I know, but for a helmet maker to say that is tantamount to saying that the helmet is...basically useless! I mean, it's supposed to be a critical part of one's riding gear, but it's got an undetermined "shelf life!"     Date: 08 May 2006 07:24:53 From: GaryG Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1147096120.126050.237050@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Ken C. M. wrote: > > NYC XYZ wrote: > > > > > > Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin > > plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it > > sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged > > by those blasted UV rays also. > > > > Ken > > -- > > New cycling jersey: $49 > > new cycling shorts: $39 > > Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless. > > > Yes, I know, but for a helmet maker to say that is tantamount to saying > that the helmet is...basically useless! I mean, it's supposed to be a > critical part of one's riding gear, but it's got an undetermined "shelf > life!" Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents, lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat. In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it. GG       Date: 08 May 2006 13:56:27 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? On Mon, 08 May 2006 07:24:53 -0700, GaryG wrote: > Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., > tents, lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat. > > In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to > be light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel > helmet that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to > wear it. Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about. Matt O.       Date: 08 May 2006 15:30:25 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? GaryG wrote: > In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be > light and comfortable. Relatively light and not especially uncomfortable is nearer the k. > You could probably design a stainless steel helmet > that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it. Knowing the specification to which cycle helmets are built, and knowing they are considerably less comfortable than a cotton cap, and knowing they don't have any track record of saving serious injuries, I don't really want to bother myself with the polystyrene ones as far as normal road riding is concerned. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 08 May 2006 06:42:22 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > The keteers would like you to believe that you should replace your > helmet if: > > - You drop it > - You leave it in a hot car > - It is exposed to UV > - It is more than X years old > etc., etc. > > The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say > and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy > a new one. > > Just use common sense Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't see the contradiction in that!     Date: 08 May 2006 10:03:59 From: UseNet via Cable Modem Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? In article <1147095742.766437.222880@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >, jack_foreigner@yahoo.com says... > > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > The keteers would like you to believe that you should replace your > > helmet if: > > > > - You drop it > > - You leave it in a hot car > > - It is exposed to UV > > - It is more than X years old > > etc., etc. > > > > The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say > > and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy > > a new one. > > > > Just use common sense > > > Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if > they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always > suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that > mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point > of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't > see the contradiction in that! By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from you wearing it during the summer. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).   Date: 08 May 2006 09:38:19 From: Ken C. M. Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? NYC XYZ wrote: > Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so > far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding > comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me > over yet or kicked me out. =) > > Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only > wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just > for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head > warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after > all...). =D > > Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading > manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all > Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or > indirect heat might damage the helmet. > > Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? > > Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they > aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of > the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an > interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron > Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to > come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and > then manipulating subatomic physics!) > > I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc > 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think > that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to > direct sunlight! > Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged by those blasted UV rays also. Ken -- New cycling jersey: $49 new cycling shorts: $39 Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.     Date: 08 May 2006 17:30:55 From: Martin Borsje Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? > NYC XYZ wrote: >> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so >> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding >> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me >> over yet or kicked me out. =) >> >> Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only >> wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just >> for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head >> warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after >> all...). =D >> >> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading >> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all >> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or >> indirect heat might damage the helmet. >> >> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? >> >> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they >> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of >> the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an >> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron >> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to >> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and >> then manipulating subatomic physics!) >> >> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc >> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think >> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to >> direct sunlight! >> > > Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin plus > rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it sounds > logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged by those > blasted UV rays also. > > Ken The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet..... -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu   Date: 08 May 2006 06:22:12 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Can't Use Helmets in the Sun???? NYC XYZ wrote: > Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so > far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding > comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me > over yet or kicked me out. =) > > Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only > wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just > for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head > warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after > all...). =D > > Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading > manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all > Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or > indirect heat might damage the helmet. > > Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet???? > > Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they > aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of > the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an > interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron > Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to > come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and > then manipulating subatomic physics!) > > I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc > 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think > that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to > direct sunlight! The keteers would like you to believe that you should replace your helmet if: - You drop it - You leave it in a hot car - It is exposed to UV - It is more than X years old etc., etc. The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy a new one. Just use common sense