| |
Main
Date: 25 Sep 2007 08:07:21
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Helmet pondering
|
Hi All,
The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!
I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
keeping my head from hitting the ice.
So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.
So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
to my detriment?
Joseph
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 14:14:57
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 28, 8:53 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 10:32 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > (good morning, Frank!)
>
> > Good morning, D-y. ;-)
>
> Actually, I was thinking of frequent poster Frank Higgenbotham ("the
> other Frank").
>
> Did you look in the mirror and respond because of what you saw gulping
> red-faced at you? ;-)
>
> Any recent, notable bullying of your students to report?
>
> Excuse me for indulging in the personal, but if you don't have any
> data to back up your claims ("wouldn't have hit your head without a
> helmet", and "helmets cause rotational injuries in crashes") then what
> is left?
>
> I think it was that crack about cowboy hats that finally tipped the
> balance-- I mean, I knew what your problem with helmets was, but if
> you can't countenance wearing a cowboy hat for fear of looking
> silly... well, there you are. As the French say, tant pis. See ya! --
> D-y
Hmm. Now _that_ was an amazing display of illogic, invective and
rudeness!
OK, I retract that "good morning" greeting. Sorry for bothering you.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 05:53:43
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 9:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 10:32 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> > (good morning, Frank!)
>
> Good morning, D-y. ;-)
Actually, I was thinking of frequent poster Frank Higgenbotham ("the
other Frank").
Did you look in the mirror and respond because of what you saw gulping
red-faced at you? ;-)
Any recent, notable bullying of your students to report?
Excuse me for indulging in the personal, but if you don't have any
data to back up your claims ("wouldn't have hit your head without a
helmet", and "helmets cause rotational injuries in crashes") then what
is left?
I think it was that crack about cowboy hats that finally tipped the
balance-- I mean, I knew what your problem with helmets was, but if
you can't countenance wearing a cowboy hat for fear of looking
silly... well, there you are. As the French say, tant pis. See ya! --
D-y
|
| | |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 08:20:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 10:32 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (good morning, Frank!)
>>
>> Good morning, D-y. ;-)
>
> Actually, I was thinking of frequent poster Frank Higgenbotham ("the
> other Frank").
>
> Did you look in the mirror and respond because of what you saw gulping
> red-faced at you? ;-)
>
> Any recent, notable bullying of your students to report?
>
> Excuse me for indulging in the personal, but if you don't have any
> data to back up your claims ("wouldn't have hit your head without a
> helmet", and "helmets cause rotational injuries in crashes") then what
> is left?
>
> I think it was that crack about cowboy hats that finally tipped the
> balance-- I mean, I knew what your problem with helmets was, but if
> you can't countenance wearing a cowboy hat for fear of looking
> silly... well, there you are. As the French say, tant pis. See ya!
> -- D-y
POTW
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:23:38
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 8:41 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
<Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com > wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 4:20 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
> >>>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
> >>>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
> >>>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
> >>>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
> >>>> the data.
> >> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> >>> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> >>> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> >>> upside?
> >> Sure! The question has religious aspects
>
> > Speaking of which, I velcroed a St. Christopher medal to my motorcycle
> > forks for years, and never had so much as a close call on that thing.
> > That's without even being Christian! I hear the St. Sebastian one
> > could cause danger, though.
>
> Making use of unauthorized miracles or blessings means you go straight
> to hell when you die. You might be getting away with it now but St Peter
> keeps track on his database and it's all sorted out at the pearly gates.
Yeah, but god's new iMac can't read 5.25" Lotus 1-2-3 floppies.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:41:38
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
landotter who? wrote:
> ...
> Yeah, but god's new iMac can't read 5.25" Lotus 1-2-3 floppies.
To be really safe, use VisiCalc files on 8-inch floppy discs.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 13:19:02
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
>>>>> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>>>>>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>>>>>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>>>>>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>>>>>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>>>>>> the data.
>>>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
>>>>> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
>>>>> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
>>>>> upside?
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> Sure! The question has religious aspects
>> landotter wrote:
>>> Speaking of which, I velcroed a St. Christopher medal to my motorcycle
>>> forks for years, and never had so much as a close call on that thing.
>>> That's without even being Christian! I hear the St. Sebastian one
>>> could cause danger, though.
> Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
>> Making use of unauthorized miracles or blessings means you go straight
>> to hell when you die. You might be getting away with it now but St Peter
>> keeps track on his database and it's all sorted out at the pearly gates.
landotter wrote:
> Yeah, but god's new iMac can't read 5.25" Lotus 1-2-3 floppies.
Ouch! Excel can't concatentate...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:58:50
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 10:41 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
>
> > Two fatalities. One was drug induced, and a helmet would have had
> > absolutely no effect. The other is disputed; helmet fans say it would
> > have saved his life, skeptics say hitting your face into a concrete
> > post at high speed kills you, helmet or no.
>
> What, is Francisco Cepeda chopped liver?
Oops. Sorry, I didn't know about him, in 1935.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:53:36
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 10:32 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com >
wrote:
> (good morning, Frank!)
Good morning, D-y. ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:50:20
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 10:26 am, Dorfus Dippintush
<Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As has been pointed out before, Tour de France data gives even better
> > numbers.
...
> > That's a _maximum_ of one fatality per 20 million miles of
> > racing at the highest level, including extreme speeds on mountain
> > descents.
>
> The Tour de France is not a good example because the roads are cleared
> of traffic, traffic islands are removed and barriers put up to keep
> pedestrians off the road. Cycling is less dangerous when you take the
> idiots off the road.
>
> Re-adjust your calculator.
:-) They keep the pedestrians off the road? You mean like in these
photos?
http://www.ironman.de/bilder/strecken-radfahren.40425.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/3dmhes
or http://tinyurl.com/3dp8np
Whatever. The post I responded to was discussing racing, so I gave
more racing data. If you want to discuss other data, there's plenty
of that, too.
The overall result is the same: bicycling is not dangerous enough to
justify a helmet recommendation.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 07:32:42
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 11:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Fine. Now if people would just stop conflating (right word?)
My handy-dandy built-in dictionary says:
<combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one : the urban crisis
conflates a number of different economic and social issues. >
Is that the meaning you were after? ("over there next to the spell
checker")
> the two
> issues. People who are in favor of wearing a helmet while cycling
> (believing it's an effective and sensible precaution) are /not/ necessarily
> in favor of mandatory use laws. In fact, the vast majority oppose such
> regulations. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
That's close to where I came in on this discussion, some years ago. A
"sensible precaution".
"Depends on how you land" <g >.
Laws? Nope, not even for, and actually especially not, for kids.
Because (opinion) they seem to decrease ridership, and for that reason
alone.
There's a "study" going on in Austin, Texas, led by a politically
active ER doc who is a Helmeteer, Hors Catagorie.
Guess how that one is going to come out?
IOW, so much for wrapping one's self in the Golden Robes of Science.
On any "side" of the discussion.
"I don't like bike helmets because I think they look funny", and all
else follows in some quarters.
Or, show us that broad-based, long-term study on the effects of
bicycle helmets IRT "rotational injuries" in non-MV-related bicycle
crashes. Instead of "you wouldn't have hit your head in the first
place if you hadn't been wearing that helmet".
All I can say is, if you look funny in the first place, don't expect
(although it could happen!) a helmet to improve matters.
Just to add to the "fish out of water" reaction (good morning,
Frank!), let me add that, since head strikes/injuries are very, very
rare from my observations, incl. several years of amateur parking lot
criterium racing, while weeks of painful, inconvenient, and sleep-
robbing recovery from road rash is an ever-present danger, not to
mention "the collar bone club", putting on a helmet does not make me
(and many, many others), ride more agressively ("dangerously") because
I (we) "don't think we're gonna get hurt". --D-y
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:30:04
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 3:24 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
> The insurers are looking at accident data, as insurers do. In an
> accident, will they have greater exposure or less exposure if the
> individual is wearing a helmet. ...
>
> As to our club, we fought the helmet requirement for many years,
> successfully, even though most members wore helmets voluntarily. Then
> LAW required us to require helmets on all rides in order to get our
> liability insurance through them, and they were the best deal for it by
> a significant amount. That was the end of the debate, since we could not
> raise dues a sufficient amount to obtain insurance elsewhere. ...
Scharf makes two mistakes.
First, insurance companies base rates on the likelihood of their
payouts, and on the amount of those likely payouts. They're much less
concerned about whether a helmet is a benefit; they are more concerned
about whether a helmet would even be necessary.
An analogy to explain this: One might be able to "look at accident
data" indicating that those who hit their heads by falling off
playground swings do better if they wear a helmet. But insurance
companies are very unlikely to require swinging helmets, because there
are too few serious head injuries on playground swings.
(Safe Kids might mount a campaign for swing helmets, sponsored by Bell
Sports. But that's another matter.)
Cycling is probably about as safe as riding a playground swing,
despite the hype about terrible head injuries.
Second, Scharf is persisting in saying that LAB mandates helmets for
its insurance. Perhaps that's true, but so far he's presented no
evidence; and there is evidence to the contrary.
Back when I ran our club century, we were insured by LAB. There was
no requirement for a helmet. Currently, the online waiver form
recommended by LAB's insurer says not a word about helmets. It's at
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf
Likewise, LAB's "safety checklist" for organized rides allows for
"strongly recommended" helmets. It clearly does not _mandate_
helmets. That's at http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/safetychecklist.pdf
Given these two pieces of evidence, I wonder if Scharf really knows
what the requirements are for his club's insurance. Again, our club
is insured, although not through LAB. We have no helmet requirement,
and the insurance policy doesn't even mention the possibility of a
helmet recommendation.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:12:32
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 4:37 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <46fb5900$0$19653$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>
>
> Bill: there are about 1200 licensed road racers in the province of
> British Columbia. I know of three who have died in riding incidents in
> the last 15 or so years.
>
> Now mind you, of those three, I have heard of two of them (both died
> before I entered the sport) and actually met the third rider personally
> (though I knew him only slightly, I know his riding companion from that
> fatal day quite well).
>
> One of the three probably wasn't a licensed racer when he died. So
> really, we're talking two deaths in 15 years out of a population of 1200
> riders, but there were probably one or two racing cyclists who died in
> action in that time that I didn't hear about.
>
> That makes something like 3-4 deaths per 18000 real-years of serious
> cycling exposure, amount of time per year of cycling not specified.
>
> But it suggests a rate of about one death for every 6000 or so
> real-years of serious cycling exposure. It's not too far-fetched to
> assume that each licensed rider's exposure is in the order of 1/20th of
> their life, which is like riding for 8.4 hours a week. So to figure out
> "continuous years of cycling", we divide that 6000 by 20, makes... 300
> years.
>
> Which is astonishingly close to that 450 years of cycling non-stop
> estimate.
As has been pointed out before, Tour de France data gives even better
numbers.
I'm not going to crunch the exact numbers on this one, since
approximations are more than sufficient. But if Bill Sornson would
like to do the math (hah!) the details are at http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
About 100 years of TdF racing. Roughly 2000 miles per year. Roughly
100 riders per year, average. That's 20 million miles ridden, very
roughly, and probably considerably more.
Two fatalities. One was drug induced, and a helmet would have had
absolutely no effect. The other is disputed; helmet fans say it would
have saved his life, skeptics say hitting your face into a concrete
post at high speed kills you, helmet or no.
No matter. That's a _maximum_ of one fatality per 20 million miles of
racing at the highest level, including extreme speeds on mountain
descents.
The only problem with this information is that certain people don't
understand how large the number 20 million really is.
I suggest our innumerate friends borrow a calculator and divide 20
million by their own annual mileage. That would be the number of
years it would take to ride that far.
Yes, the calculator is correct. It's many thousands of years.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:41:13
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190902352.019453.197120@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:37 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <46fb5900$0$19653$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> >
> >
> > Bill: there are about 1200 licensed road racers in the province of
> > British Columbia. I know of three who have died in riding incidents in
> > the last 15 or so years.
> >
> > Now mind you, of those three, I have heard of two of them (both died
> > before I entered the sport) and actually met the third rider personally
> > (though I knew him only slightly, I know his riding companion from that
> > fatal day quite well).
> >
> > One of the three probably wasn't a licensed racer when he died. So
> > really, we're talking two deaths in 15 years out of a population of 1200
> > riders, but there were probably one or two racing cyclists who died in
> > action in that time that I didn't hear about.
> >
> > That makes something like 3-4 deaths per 18000 real-years of serious
> > cycling exposure, amount of time per year of cycling not specified.
> >
> > But it suggests a rate of about one death for every 6000 or so
> > real-years of serious cycling exposure. It's not too far-fetched to
> > assume that each licensed rider's exposure is in the order of 1/20th of
> > their life, which is like riding for 8.4 hours a week. So to figure out
> > "continuous years of cycling", we divide that 6000 by 20, makes... 300
> > years.
> >
> > Which is astonishingly close to that 450 years of cycling non-stop
> > estimate.
>
> As has been pointed out before, Tour de France data gives even better
> numbers.
>
> I'm not going to crunch the exact numbers on this one, since
> approximations are more than sufficient. But if Bill Sornson would
> like to do the math (hah!) the details are at
> http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>
> About 100 years of TdF racing. Roughly 2000 miles per year. Roughly
> 100 riders per year, average. That's 20 million miles ridden, very
> roughly, and probably considerably more.
>
> Two fatalities. One was drug induced, and a helmet would have had
> absolutely no effect. The other is disputed; helmet fans say it would
> have saved his life, skeptics say hitting your face into a concrete
> post at high speed kills you, helmet or no.
What, is Francisco Cepeda chopped liver?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 22:26:45
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:37 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> In article <46fb5900$0$19653$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>>
>>
>> Bill: there are about 1200 licensed road racers in the province of
>> British Columbia. I know of three who have died in riding incidents in
>> the last 15 or so years.
>>
>> Now mind you, of those three, I have heard of two of them (both died
>> before I entered the sport) and actually met the third rider personally
>> (though I knew him only slightly, I know his riding companion from that
>> fatal day quite well).
>>
>> One of the three probably wasn't a licensed racer when he died. So
>> really, we're talking two deaths in 15 years out of a population of 1200
>> riders, but there were probably one or two racing cyclists who died in
>> action in that time that I didn't hear about.
>>
>> That makes something like 3-4 deaths per 18000 real-years of serious
>> cycling exposure, amount of time per year of cycling not specified.
>>
>> But it suggests a rate of about one death for every 6000 or so
>> real-years of serious cycling exposure. It's not too far-fetched to
>> assume that each licensed rider's exposure is in the order of 1/20th of
>> their life, which is like riding for 8.4 hours a week. So to figure out
>> "continuous years of cycling", we divide that 6000 by 20, makes... 300
>> years.
>>
>> Which is astonishingly close to that 450 years of cycling non-stop
>> estimate.
>
> As has been pointed out before, Tour de France data gives even better
> numbers.
>
> I'm not going to crunch the exact numbers on this one, since
> approximations are more than sufficient. But if Bill Sornson would
> like to do the math (hah!) the details are at http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>
> About 100 years of TdF racing. Roughly 2000 miles per year. Roughly
> 100 riders per year, average. That's 20 million miles ridden, very
> roughly, and probably considerably more.
>
> Two fatalities. One was drug induced, and a helmet would have had
> absolutely no effect. The other is disputed; helmet fans say it would
> have saved his life, skeptics say hitting your face into a concrete
> post at high speed kills you, helmet or no.
>
> No matter. That's a _maximum_ of one fatality per 20 million miles of
> racing at the highest level, including extreme speeds on mountain
> descents.
>
> The only problem with this information is that certain people don't
> understand how large the number 20 million really is.
>
> I suggest our innumerate friends borrow a calculator and divide 20
> million by their own annual mileage. That would be the number of
> years it would take to ride that far.
>
> Yes, the calculator is correct. It's many thousands of years.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
The Tour de France is not a good example because the roads are cleared
of traffic, traffic islands are removed and barriers put up to keep
pedestrians off the road. Cycling is less dangerous when you take the
idiots off the road.
Re-adjust your calculator.
Dorfus
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:26:31
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:26:45 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 4:37 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <46fb5900$0$19653$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill: there are about 1200 licensed road racers in the province of
>>> British Columbia. I know of three who have died in riding incidents in
>>> the last 15 or so years.
>>>
>>> Now mind you, of those three, I have heard of two of them (both died
>>> before I entered the sport) and actually met the third rider personally
>>> (though I knew him only slightly, I know his riding companion from that
>>> fatal day quite well).
>>>
>>> One of the three probably wasn't a licensed racer when he died. So
>>> really, we're talking two deaths in 15 years out of a population of 1200
>>> riders, but there were probably one or two racing cyclists who died in
>>> action in that time that I didn't hear about.
>>>
>>> That makes something like 3-4 deaths per 18000 real-years of serious
>>> cycling exposure, amount of time per year of cycling not specified.
>>>
>>> But it suggests a rate of about one death for every 6000 or so
>>> real-years of serious cycling exposure. It's not too far-fetched to
>>> assume that each licensed rider's exposure is in the order of 1/20th of
>>> their life, which is like riding for 8.4 hours a week. So to figure out
>>> "continuous years of cycling", we divide that 6000 by 20, makes... 300
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Which is astonishingly close to that 450 years of cycling non-stop
>>> estimate.
>>
>> As has been pointed out before, Tour de France data gives even better
>> numbers.
>>
>> I'm not going to crunch the exact numbers on this one, since
>> approximations are more than sufficient. But if Bill Sornson would
>> like to do the math (hah!) the details are at http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>>
>> About 100 years of TdF racing. Roughly 2000 miles per year. Roughly
>> 100 riders per year, average. That's 20 million miles ridden, very
>> roughly, and probably considerably more.
>>
>> Two fatalities. One was drug induced, and a helmet would have had
>> absolutely no effect. The other is disputed; helmet fans say it would
>> have saved his life, skeptics say hitting your face into a concrete
>> post at high speed kills you, helmet or no.
>>
>> No matter. That's a _maximum_ of one fatality per 20 million miles of
>> racing at the highest level, including extreme speeds on mountain
>> descents.
>>
>> The only problem with this information is that certain people don't
>
>> understand how large the number 20 million really is.
>>
>> I suggest our innumerate friends borrow a calculator and divide 20
>> million by their own annual mileage. That would be the number of
>> years it would take to ride that far.
>>
>> Yes, the calculator is correct. It's many thousands of years.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> The Tour de France is not a good example because the roads are cleared
> of traffic, traffic islands are removed and barriers put up to keep
> pedestrians off the road. Cycling is less dangerous when you take the
> idiots off the road.
>
> Re-adjust your calculator.
>
>
> Dorfus
Well, just going by an average rate of speed for those 20 million miles of,
say 20 miles/hr, that's one death per million hours. That's roughly four
times the rate of death for "normal" cycling.
Not that a sample size of one is anything other than anecdote...to really
understand what happens when cyclists wear helmets, you have to look at
populations where helmet wearing jumps suddenly. In those cases, nothing
happens to head injury rates.
This stuff is all webbed at www.cyclehelmets.org.
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 06:16:44
From: Donga
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 9:47 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
<Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com > wrote:
> _ wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
> >> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
> >> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
> >> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>
> > You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
> > are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
> > encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>
> > There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
> > have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
> > thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
> > can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
> > involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
> > wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
> > elimination of liability.
>
> > Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
> > non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
> > sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
> > addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
> > undermine their ability to make more money.
>
> No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
>
> From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
> minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If not-wearing
> helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the severity of it, then
> it's in the commercial interest of an insurer to encourage non-wearing
> of helmets. And they would do that by charging higher premiums for
> wearing a helmet and lower premiums for un-helmeted people, and yet you
> say they don't do that. Why?
>
> Dorf
Dorfus I think you are taking the piss? In your own country, to ride
in a CA-certified race, you MUST wear a helmet and it MUST have the
little shiny standards sticker. Doesn't matter if you get the same
helmet for half the price O/S, it won't have the sticker and you are
banned. People put about arguments about insurance, but skeptical me
thinks it's more about helmet importers putting the heavies on CA and
them buckling. The really annoying thing is I can buy a $30 Minnie
Mouse helmet with a sticker and wear it backwards, that's OK, but a $$
$ tour special with no sticker? Banned.
Donga
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:34:13
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 27, 1:24 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> > Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
> > they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
> > and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on that.
> > An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and facts right.
>
> Insurers look at actual evidence.
[snip]
Dear Steven,
Insurers look at actual evidence, including the practical results of
lawsuits, which are scarcely "evidence" in any scientific sense.
When lawyers can point to mandatory helmet laws and junk science, not
wearing a helmet becomes a legal and political matter with severe
financial consequences.
Insurers looked at the "evidence" in silicone implant lawsuits and
came to a perfectly practical and utterly unscientific conclusion.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:02:22
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 10:39 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
<Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com > wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > _ wrote:
>
> >> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
> >> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
>
> > Highly unlikely that they looked at real evidence then. Most likely they
> > were over at a web site like "http://www.cyclehelmets.org/". If anyone
> > were dumb enough to believe that site, they could have become a skeptic
> > by mistake.
>
> >> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics
> >> examine
> >> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value
> >> sufficient to
> >> justify their use or compulsion.
>
> > Those people died of massive head injuries prior to being able to
> > examine the evidence.
>
> > What is true is that probably few people decided to support compulsion
> > after examining the evidence, believing in personal choice. Other than
> > quite a few ER physicians and nurses, anyway.
>
> > Personally I often don't wear a helmet on non-club rides (helmets are
> > required by my club as a condition of their insurance coverage, as is
> > the case with most clubs in the U.S. that carry liability insurance to
> > protect their officers). It's not that I don't believe the evidence,
> > it's that I also know that bicycling is a relatively safe activity,
> > despite the helmet versus no-helmet injury data from ERs.
>
> Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
> they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
> and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on that.
> An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and facts right.
>
> Dorfus
There's a good chance Scharf is mistaken - or worse - about that
insurance requirement.
Nationally, the League of American Bicyclists, despite their heavy
promotion of helmets, has an insurance policy for League-sponsored
events that does not require helmets.
(See http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf)
Likewise, our club has no helmet requirement.
One wonders how such a requirement would be enforced. If a cyclist
showed up to ride a club ride wearing, instead, a cycling cap, would
the group chase him away? Seems harsh.
What if a person showed up with a "helmet" that was not CPSC
approved? Do they check stickers at the start of each ride, or just
for new people that show up?
And what if such a person chose to ride the public roads along with a
ride? Sure, it would be a bit rude - but would they stop the ride?
Tell him he's not allowed to use the public roads? Disable his
bicycle?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:39 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
> <Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
>>>> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
>>> Highly unlikely that they looked at real evidence then. Most likely they
>>> were over at a web site like "http://www.cyclehelmets.org/". If anyone
>>> were dumb enough to believe that site, they could have become a skeptic
>>> by mistake.
>>>> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics
>>>> examine
>>>> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value
>>>> sufficient to
>>>> justify their use or compulsion.
>>> Those people died of massive head injuries prior to being able to
>>> examine the evidence.
>>> What is true is that probably few people decided to support compulsion
>>> after examining the evidence, believing in personal choice. Other than
>>> quite a few ER physicians and nurses, anyway.
>>> Personally I often don't wear a helmet on non-club rides (helmets are
>>> required by my club as a condition of their insurance coverage, as is
>>> the case with most clubs in the U.S. that carry liability insurance to
>>> protect their officers). It's not that I don't believe the evidence,
>>> it's that I also know that bicycling is a relatively safe activity,
>>> despite the helmet versus no-helmet injury data from ERs.
>> Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
>> they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
>> and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on that.
>> An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and facts right.
>>
>> Dorfus
>
> There's a good chance Scharf is mistaken - or worse - about that
> insurance requirement.
>
> Nationally, the League of American Bicyclists, despite their heavy
> promotion of helmets, has an insurance policy for League-sponsored
> events that does not require helmets.
> (See http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf)
> Likewise, our club has no helmet requirement.
>
> One wonders how such a requirement would be enforced. If a cyclist
> showed up to ride a club ride wearing, instead, a cycling cap, would
> the group chase him away? Seems harsh.
>
> What if a person showed up with a "helmet" that was not CPSC
> approved? Do they check stickers at the start of each ride, or just
> for new people that show up?
>
> And what if such a person chose to ride the public roads along with a
> ride? Sure, it would be a bit rude - but would they stop the ride?
> Tell him he's not allowed to use the public roads? Disable his
> bicycle?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
I imagine he could still ride with the club but he may not be covered in
the event of an accident. The person in charge at the club would have to
point the rules out so that the non-helmet wearing victim wouldn't try
to sue the club for not making him wear a helmet.
Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
risk as worked out by the insurers.
Dorf
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 11:34:37
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>
You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
elimination of liability.
Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
undermine their ability to make more money.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 19:47:24
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
_ wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
>> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
>> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>>
>
> You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
> are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
> encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>
> There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
> have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
> thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
> can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
> involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
> wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
> elimination of liability.
>
> Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
> non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
> sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
> addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
> undermine their ability to make more money.
No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If not-wearing
helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the severity of it, then
it's in the commercial interest of an insurer to encourage non-wearing
of helmets. And they would do that by charging higher premiums for
wearing a helmet and lower premiums for un-helmeted people, and yet you
say they don't do that. Why?
Dorf
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:38:17
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:47:24 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
>>> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
>>> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>>>
>>
>> You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
>> are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
>> encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>>
>> There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
>> have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
>> thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
>> can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
>> involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
>> wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
>> elimination of liability.
>>
>> Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
>> non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
>> sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
>> addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
>> undermine their ability to make more money.
>
> No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
>
> From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
> minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If not-wearing
> helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the severity of it, then
> it's in the commercial interest of an insurer to encourage non-wearing
> of helmets. And they would do that by charging higher premiums for
> wearing a helmet and lower premiums for un-helmeted people, and yet you
> say they don't do that. Why?
>
It's quite clear, really.
Insurer: "Your premium is this much."
Insured: "Why is it so much?"
Insurer: "Because cycling is dangerous."
Insured: "How do you know it is dangerous?"
Insurer: "Of course it is dangerous - look at all those people wearing
helmets. We won't insure you unless you wear a helmet."
So, if not wearing a helmet has no effect on injury, the insurer makes more
money - they can charge a higher premium for a falsly percieved risk, and
if you don't wear a helmet, they don't pay out.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:55:56
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
_ wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:47:24 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>> _ wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
>>>> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
>>>> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>>>>
>>> You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
>>> are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
>>> encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>>>
>>> There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
>>> have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
>>> thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
>>> can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
>>> involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
>>> wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
>>> elimination of liability.
>>>
>>> Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
>>> non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
>>> sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
>>> addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
>>> undermine their ability to make more money.
>> No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
>>
>> From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
>> minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If not-wearing
>> helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the severity of it, then
>> it's in the commercial interest of an insurer to encourage non-wearing
>> of helmets. And they would do that by charging higher premiums for
>> wearing a helmet and lower premiums for un-helmeted people, and yet you
>> say they don't do that. Why?
>>
>
>
> It's quite clear, really.
>
> Insurer: "Your premium is this much."
>
> Insured: "Why is it so much?"
>
> Insurer: "Because cycling is dangerous."
>
> Insured: "How do you know it is dangerous?"
>
> Insurer: "Of course it is dangerous - look at all those people wearing
> helmets. We won't insure you unless you wear a helmet."
>
> So, if not wearing a helmet has no effect on injury, the insurer makes more
> money - they can charge a higher premium for a falsly percieved risk, and
> if you don't wear a helmet, they don't pay out.
But helmet wearing increases the danger by encouraging reckless
behavior, not to mention rotational effects caused by helmet design.
It's the REAL risk that the insurers pay out on, so the premium should
be cheaper for non-helmet riders.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:17:27
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:47:24 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and
>>>>> non-helmet clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as
>>>>> to the degree of risk as worked out by the insurers.
>>>>>
>>>> You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business.
>>>> Insurers are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation
>>>> for those who encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>>>>
>>>> There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is
>>>> that they have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of
>>>> risk; if the public thinks that something has a higher risk that
>>>> it really does, the insurers can charge a greater premium. Another
>>>> is claim denial; if a cyclist is involved in a collision with an
>>>> insured party, if the cyclist was not wearing a helemt, that will
>>>> be advanced as a reason for a reduction or elimination of
>>>> liability. Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted
>>>> versus
>>>> non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that
>>>> massive sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury
>>>> rates; but in addition, should the insureres actually create two
>>>> rates, it would undermine their ability to make more money.
>>> No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
>>>
>>> From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
>>> minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If
>>> not-wearing helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the
>>> severity of it, then it's in the commercial interest of an insurer
>>> to encourage non-wearing of helmets. And they would do that by
>>> charging higher premiums for wearing a helmet and lower premiums
>>> for un-helmeted people, and yet you say they don't do that. Why?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's quite clear, really.
>>
>> Insurer: "Your premium is this much."
>>
>> Insured: "Why is it so much?"
>>
>> Insurer: "Because cycling is dangerous."
>>
>> Insured: "How do you know it is dangerous?"
>>
>> Insurer: "Of course it is dangerous - look at all those people
>> wearing helmets. We won't insure you unless you wear a helmet."
>>
>> So, if not wearing a helmet has no effect on injury, the insurer
>> makes more money - they can charge a higher premium for a falsly
>> percieved risk, and if you don't wear a helmet, they don't pay out.
>
> But helmet wearing increases the danger by encouraging reckless
> behavior, not to mention rotational effects caused by helmet design.
> It's the REAL risk that the insurers pay out on, so the premium should
> be cheaper for non-helmet riders.
ROTFL Thanks...I need that.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 13:56:33
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:55:56 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:47:24 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
>>>>> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
>>>>> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>>>>>
>>>> You are, I think, missing the point about the insurance business. Insurers
>>>> are not trying to reduce risk, or to provide compesation for those who
>>>> encounter mishaps, they are trying to make money.
>>>>
>>>> There are several tactics of insurers that apply here. One is that they
>>>> have a vested interest in exagerating the perception of risk; if the public
>>>> thinks that something has a higher risk that it really does, the insurers
>>>> can charge a greater premium. Another is claim denial; if a cyclist is
>>>> involved in a collision with an insured party, if the cyclist was not
>>>> wearing a helemt, that will be advanced as a reason for a reduction or
>>>> elimination of liability.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, determining the rates of injury for helmetted versus
>>>> non-helmetted cyclists is not necessary, as it has been shown that massive
>>>> sudden increased helmet wearing has no effect on injury rates; but in
>>>> addition, should the insureres actually create two rates, it would
>>>> undermine their ability to make more money.
>>> No offense, but I find your argument unclear.
>>>
>>> From what I understand, insurers will do whatever is required to
>>> minimize the chances of a payout, or reduce the amount. If not-wearing
>>> helmets reduces the chance of an accident, and the severity of it, then
>>> it's in the commercial interest of an insurer to encourage non-wearing
>>> of helmets. And they would do that by charging higher premiums for
>>> wearing a helmet and lower premiums for un-helmeted people, and yet you
>>> say they don't do that. Why?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's quite clear, really.
>>
>> Insurer: "Your premium is this much."
>>
>> Insured: "Why is it so much?"
>>
>> Insurer: "Because cycling is dangerous."
>>
>> Insured: "How do you know it is dangerous?"
>>
>> Insurer: "Of course it is dangerous - look at all those people wearing
>> helmets. We won't insure you unless you wear a helmet."
>>
>> So, if not wearing a helmet has no effect on injury, the insurer makes more
>> money - they can charge a higher premium for a falsly percieved risk, and
>> if you don't wear a helmet, they don't pay out.
>
> But helmet wearing increases the danger by encouraging reckless
> behavior, not to mention rotational effects caused by helmet design.
> It's the REAL risk that the insurers pay out on, so the premium should
> be cheaper for non-helmet riders.
It's not in the interest of the insurance companies to make premiums
cheaper.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:20:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 10:39 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
>> <Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
>>>>> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
>>>> Highly unlikely that they looked at real evidence then. Most
>>>> likely they were over at a web site like
>>>> "http://www.cyclehelmets.org/". If anyone were dumb enough to
>>>> believe that site, they could have become a skeptic by mistake.
>>>>> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics
>>>>> examine
>>>>> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value
>>>>> sufficient to
>>>>> justify their use or compulsion.
>>>> Those people died of massive head injuries prior to being able to
>>>> examine the evidence.
>>>> What is true is that probably few people decided to support
>>>> compulsion after examining the evidence, believing in personal
>>>> choice. Other than quite a few ER physicians and nurses, anyway.
>>>> Personally I often don't wear a helmet on non-club rides (helmets
>>>> are required by my club as a condition of their insurance
>>>> coverage, as is the case with most clubs in the U.S. that carry
>>>> liability insurance to protect their officers). It's not that I
>>>> don't believe the evidence, it's that I also know that bicycling
>>>> is a relatively safe activity, despite the helmet versus no-helmet
>>>> injury data from ERs.
>>> Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
>>> they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is
>>> safe and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a
>>> judgment on that. An insurers very existence depends on getting the
>>> maths and facts right. Dorfus
>>
>> There's a good chance Scharf is mistaken - or worse - about that
>> insurance requirement.
Hillaryesque for calling him a liar. (Unless we willingly suspend our
common sense.) Frank knows SMS's bike club better than SMS does! Just
like...aw, never mind.
>> Nationally, the League of American Bicyclists, despite their heavy
>> promotion of helmets, has an insurance policy for League-sponsored
>> events that does not require helmets.
>> (See http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf)
>> Likewise, our club has no helmet requirement.
>>
>> One wonders how such a requirement would be enforced. If a cyclist
>> showed up to ride a club ride wearing, instead, a cycling cap, would
>> the group chase him away? Seems harsh.
>>
>> What if a person showed up with a "helmet" that was not CPSC
>> approved? Do they check stickers at the start of each ride, or just
>> for new people that show up?
>>
>> And what if such a person chose to ride the public roads along with a
>> ride? Sure, it would be a bit rude - but would they stop the ride?
>> Tell him he's not allowed to use the public roads? Disable his
>> bicycle?
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> I imagine he could still ride with the club but he may not be covered
> in the event of an accident. The person in charge at the club would
> have to point the rules out so that the non-helmet wearing victim
> wouldn't try to sue the club for not making him wear a helmet.
>
> Is there a difference in insurance rates between helmet and non-helmet
> clubs? The difference in rates should give an idea as to the degree of
> risk as worked out by the insurers.
>
> Dorf
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:57:54
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 9:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well then we're all safe for the next...3000 years! Going by
> > /statistics/...
>
> > LOL
>
> It's really hard discussing data with a guy who's math teacher is
> Paris Hilton.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Frank, is it true that the last time your wife said "I hope you can
get it up tonight, dear", you went out in the backyard with a kite?
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 02:55:28
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
SMS wrote:
>
> It's interesting how the AHZs always try to frame the debate around
> arguments like "xyz country instituted a helmet law and injuries and
> fatalities didn't go down, or went up." They are either unable, or
> unwilling, to look at the big picture and all the other factors that
> come into play in population studies.
But whole-population benefits are the ones for which MHLs are
presumably being instituted. If there are no such benefits, then
there is no valid excuse for lawmakers to require cyclists to wear
helmets.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 11:22:55
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:55:28 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting how the AHZs always try to frame the debate around
>> arguments like "xyz country instituted a helmet law and injuries and
>> fatalities didn't go down, or went up." They are either unable, or
>> unwilling, to look at the big picture and all the other factors that
>> come into play in population studies.
>
> But whole-population benefits are the ones for which MHLs are
> presumably being instituted. If there are no such benefits, then
> there is no valid excuse for lawmakers to require cyclists to wear
> helmets.
>
And of course we have the problem that politicians - like those in
California - cannot or will not do the maths; instead they look to the
electorate (cue Bill "I dont need data to make a decision" Sornson), see
that they are starting, due to manufacturers' propaganda, to wear helmets;
and hey presto, they introduce an MHL.
Cycling isn't dangerous enough to require helmets, even if they did work.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:32:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Chalo wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting how the AHZs always try to frame the debate around
>> arguments like "xyz country instituted a helmet law and injuries and
>> fatalities didn't go down, or went up." They are either unable, or
>> unwilling, to look at the big picture and all the other factors that
>> come into play in population studies.
>
> But whole-population benefits are the ones for which MHLs are
> presumably being instituted. If there are no such benefits, then
> there is no valid excuse for lawmakers to require cyclists to wear
> helmets.
Fine. Now if people would just stop conflating (right word?) the two
issues. People who are in favor of wearing a helmet while cycling
(believing it's an effective and sensible precaution) are /not/ necessarily
in favor of mandatory use laws. In fact, the vast majority oppose such
regulations. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:51:15
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 8:39 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > If they were a drug, they'd be dismissed as snake oil--claims of
> > bicycle helmets reducing serious head injury and death are never
> > substantiated by any figures for whole populations, such as states,
> > provinces, or nations.
>
> It's like seat belts or airbags in vehicles. There are so many other
> factors in play, that whole population studies are meaningless.
To relate that to Carl's point: Why would that not also be true of,
say, most large scale medical studies? When it was determined that
cigarettes do cause cancer, it was confirmed from large-scale and
whole population studies, despite "many other factors" being in play.
They certainly didn't put all smokers into one lab and watch what
happened. When it was confirmed that controlling cholesterol was
beneficial for cardiac health, the same was true.
There have been studies in which small group data was overturned by
large population data. The most famous dealt with Hormone Replacement
Therapy in post-menopausal women. Small group studies erroneously
claimed cardiac (and other) benefits for HRT, and based on that
preliminary information, HRT was widely prescribed. But the results
of studying the resulting large groups was strongly opposite the
preliminary data. They found HRT _causes_ cardiac problems.
Bike helmet data is precisely the same. One of the very earliest (and
very crudest, and most poorly designed) studies claimed something like
"85% benefit." Based on that, many MHLs were passed. But examination
of the resulting large population data showed either zero benefit, or
actual increases in serious head injuries per remaining cyclist. The
"85%" result was never confirmed, and in fact, was proven wrong over
and over.
Under those circumstances, it takes a special combination of ignorance
and obstinacy to claim it's the large population data that's wrong!
> If you bring up whole population studies you lose the debate by default,
> since such studies cannot account for the myriad of other factors.
As usual, Stephen, you try to set the rules for the discussion so YOU
determine who wins or loses. But mere proclamations that the other
side "loses" don't cut it in real debate. Show us the data! As in
all such studies, the bigger the data set, the better.
> It's interesting how the AHZs always try to frame the debate around
> arguments like "xyz country instituted a helmet law and injuries and
> fatalities didn't go down, or went up." They are either unable, or
> unwilling, to look at the big picture and all the other factors that
> come into play in population studies.
:-) That is perfectly, and amazingly, backwards! By definition, the
large data sets, in which all or almost all the millions of cyclists
in a country wear helmets, ARE the big picture!
Yes, they conflict with studies like the source of the "85%" claim - a
study with about 240 self-selected subjects, those being early
adopters with good insurance. But in what other situation does anyone
imagine a tiny study of self-selected subjects trumps a study of
millions of essentially randomly chosen subjects?
It certainly didn't work that way with Hormone Replacement Therapy!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:48:29
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 6:32 pm, Fred Clydesdale <f...@belldinger.com > wrote:
> In article <1190765323.142265.277...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> hey, what does it matter what he wrote? HERE WE GO AGAIN.
Frankie heard the price of gas was going up; he figured it made him
worth more.
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 02:37:41
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
SMS wrote:
>
> J Taylor wrote
> >
> > You need to go to www.cyclehelmets.org and do a bit of reading.
>
> Oh yeah, they're a web site that evaluates the facts in an unbiased
> manner---not.
They do a good job of supporting their claims with credible data,
which is more than you do on your website. (Hint: "people who
disagree with me are wrong, because I said so" is not data.) If you
dispute their conclusions, you should take a crack at interpreting the
data in a way that supports your opinion, if you can.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:26:10
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 7:18 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
>
>
> > You deleted 90% of what I wrote to promote TRUTH?!? LOL
>
> > Typical lying liberal.
>
> Still haven't grasped the concept of snipping irrelevant stuff, have you.
Nope. He's thoroughly baffled by it. I don't believe he's capable of
figuring it out.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:24:25
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 7:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
> Well then we're all safe for the next...3000 years! Going by
> /statistics/...
>
> LOL
It's really hard discussing data with a guy who's math teacher is
Paris Hilton.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:02:31
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 5:27 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com >
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:20:53 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
> >>
> > Sure! The question has religious aspects - the same facts, logic and
> > anecdotes are just as compelling to one view as to its opposite and no
> > one's opinion ever changes!
>
> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
I agree. That's certainly how I came to hold my current views.
In fact, I know of one person (I'll let him remain anonymous) who
started out arguing strongly for helmet use in these discussion
groups. He eventually did read the references people kept referring
him to. He's now a leader in the fight against mandatory helmets in
his country.
>
> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics examine
> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value sufficient to
> justify their use or compulsion.
Agreed.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:58:52
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 12:37 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> > wrote:
> >> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
> >> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450
> >> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
> > Is this true?
>
> No.
>
> > How is this determined?
>
> Creative numeric massagery. HTH
Well, Bill, why not give us the correct number?
A few weeks ago, you told a guy with a flat, "Change your inner
tube." For you, that was brilliant!
But since, you've posted nothing of factual value. It's time for
another attempt!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:58:07
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 4:20 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
> >> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
> >> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
> >> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
> >> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
> >> the data.
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> > feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> > qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> > upside?
>
> Sure! The question has religious aspects
Speaking of which, I velcroed a St. Christopher medal to my motorcycle
forks for years, and never had so much as a close call on that thing.
That's without even being Christian! I hear the St. Sebastian one
could cause danger, though.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 09:41:50
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
landotter wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:20 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>>>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>>>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>>>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>>>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>>>> the data.
>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
>>> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
>>> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
>>> upside?
>> Sure! The question has religious aspects
>
> Speaking of which, I velcroed a St. Christopher medal to my motorcycle
> forks for years, and never had so much as a close call on that thing.
> That's without even being Christian! I hear the St. Sebastian one
> could cause danger, though.
>
>
>
>
Making use of unauthorized miracles or blessings means you go straight
to hell when you die. You might be getting away with it now but St Peter
keeps track on his database and it's all sorted out at the pearly gates.
Dorfus
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:15:21
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
> ludicrous.
Ah, BS up to his usual tricks. Like any 21st century Republican, he
can't be bothered to reconcile measurable facts with his worldview.
Nice work, Bill, keeping America safe from the forces of truth!
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:05:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
>> ludicrous.
>
> Ah, BS up to his usual tricks. Like any 21st century Republican, he
> can't be bothered to reconcile measurable facts with his worldview.
>
> Nice work, Bill, keeping America safe from the forces of truth!
You deleted 90% of what I wrote to promote TRUTH?!? LOL
Typical lying liberal.
Bill "alert: redundancy alert" S.
PS: I am not a Republican, Lard-oh. Sorry to confound your tidy world
view.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:18:26
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46fae5d3$0$17090$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Chalo wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>> Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
>>> ludicrous.
>>
>> Ah, BS up to his usual tricks. Like any 21st century Republican, he
>> can't be bothered to reconcile measurable facts with his worldview.
>>
>> Nice work, Bill, keeping America safe from the forces of truth!
>
> You deleted 90% of what I wrote to promote TRUTH?!? LOL
>
> Typical lying liberal.
Still haven't grasped the concept of snipping irrelevant stuff, have you.
There there.
clive
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 23:54:33
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:18:26 +0100, Clive George wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:46fae5d3$0$17090$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
>>>> ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Ah, BS up to his usual tricks. Like any 21st century Republican, he
>>> can't be bothered to reconcile measurable facts with his worldview.
>>>
>>> Nice work, Bill, keeping America safe from the forces of truth!
>>
>> You deleted 90% of what I wrote to promote TRUTH?!? LOL
>>
>> Typical lying liberal.
>
> Still haven't grasped the concept of snipping irrelevant stuff, have you.
> There there.
>
> clive
At least he seems to have stopped complaining about attribution errors that
don't exist (he did have trouble counting quote characters when there was
more than one of them prepending a quoted line).
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:47:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Clive George wrote:
> Still haven't grasped snipping you. There there.
Brilliant.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:15:47
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46faef9b$0$4972$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> Still haven't grasped snipping you. There there.
>
> Brilliant.
Still haven't grasped the concept of not snipping relevant stuff, have you.
There there.
clive
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:52:13
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
>> ludicrous.
>
Like any modern Democrat, the pro helmet crowd pushes policies and
procedures proved to be worthless or even counter productive.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:56:37
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 6:22 pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> If the goal is to keep your head from getting skinned up, then the old
> hairnet seems like a much better choice than a helmet. Frankly, I wish
> that they would design helmets with a much thinner shell... and
> without "spoilers" on the back.
http://www.casco-helme.com/01/warp2_2.jpg
Problem is only Chris Hoy manages to not look like a dork in one. Only
he can afford one too.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:36:59
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 11:05 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The rate of death, for example, of ALL
> > forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of
> > cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
>
> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
> few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>
> A more interesting statistic would be the rate of serious injury or
> death among the racing or club membership population. At least then
> would could assume that they know how to ride and we can take a guess
> at an avg yearly mileage. I remember seeing some stats from a major
> national club that were insanely low... but I wonder how they presumed
> to know this information? Dead members are unlikely to call the head
> office and report what happened...
Getting good reliable numbers in cases like this is going to be next
to impossible. We will never know when someone get run off the road
and ends up crashing and then walking away, with or without helmet.
People get up and either go talk to the driver that ran them off the
road, or they just go home. I also believe that to wear a helmet or
not wear a helmet should be a personal choice left to the individual.
Personally I wear one ALL the time. When I was a kid I rode many many
years without one. We didn't even own one, but once in a while we
would go get our football helmet and put that on when we would go
jumping creeks.
I've only had a couple of close calls on a bike. One was a bit of a
few things working together to cause the problem. At snake happened
to be on the road in front of me. Since the area I was riding in was
of the nature that gave that snake about a 50 50 chance of being the
poisonous kind, I tried to stop because snake bites are no fun. I got
both brakes hard, and yes I got them evenly. Trouble is the back
brake picked that moment to fail. Both me and old ten speed went over
the snake. Tuck and roll. When the people saw me get up laughing,
there was a big roar of laughter. I got my pliers out, fixed the rear
brake cable and away we went, never to know if the snake was a
poisonous one.
The other case was like most people here have had. I was run off the
road into a ditch by a car that didn't see me. I wound up wet, but
ok.
In neither case I was wearing a helmet. In both cases I was ok, but
that really doesn't impact the debate. I also see where there was
nothing in either case where a helmet would have done any harm and if
things had been a bit different might have done a great deal of good.
I wear helmet's, but that is my choice, my decision and will be my
body to bear the brunt of any impact that I might see. My choice
should not impact another's right to make the same decision for
themselves. I wear a helmet, but I would be against any requirement
to require them.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:49:57
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Mark wrote:
> On Sep 26, 11:05 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
>>> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450
>>> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
>>
>> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
>> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew
>> a few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
>> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
>> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>>
>> A more interesting statistic would be the rate of serious injury or
>> death among the racing or club membership population. At least then
>> would could assume that they know how to ride and we can take a guess
>> at an avg yearly mileage. I remember seeing some stats from a major
>> national club that were insanely low... but I wonder how they
>> presumed to know this information? Dead members are unlikely to call
>> the head office and report what happened...
>
> Getting good reliable numbers in cases like this is going to be next
> to impossible. We will never know when someone get run off the road
> and ends up crashing and then walking away, with or without helmet.
> People get up and either go talk to the driver that ran them off the
> road, or they just go home. I also believe that to wear a helmet or
> not wear a helmet should be a personal choice left to the individual.
> Personally I wear one ALL the time. When I was a kid I rode many many
> years without one. We didn't even own one, but once in a while we
> would go get our football helmet and put that on when we would go
> jumping creeks.
>
> I've only had a couple of close calls on a bike. One was a bit of a
> few things working together to cause the problem. At snake happened
> to be on the road in front of me. Since the area I was riding in was
> of the nature that gave that snake about a 50 50 chance of being the
> poisonous kind, I tried to stop because snake bites are no fun. I got
> both brakes hard, and yes I got them evenly. Trouble is the back
> brake picked that moment to fail. Both me and old ten speed went over
> the snake. Tuck and roll. When the people saw me get up laughing,
> there was a big roar of laughter. I got my pliers out, fixed the rear
> brake cable and away we went, never to know if the snake was a
> poisonous one.
>
> The other case was like most people here have had. I was run off the
> road into a ditch by a car that didn't see me. I wound up wet, but
> ok.
>
> In neither case I was wearing a helmet. In both cases I was ok, but
> that really doesn't impact the debate. I also see where there was
> nothing in either case where a helmet would have done any harm and if
> things had been a bit different might have done a great deal of good.
>
> I wear helmet's, but that is my choice, my decision and will be my
> body to bear the brunt of any impact that I might see. My choice
> should not impact another's right to make the same decision for
> themselves. I wear a helmet, but I would be against any requirement
> to require them.
The reall AHZs will call you dangerous. HTH
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:22:19
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 11:09 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in Ron's
> hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider whether he or she
> is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just ridiculous, as you aptly
> describe.
Odd... when I read his post I thought it bolstered my argument. Just
as he subconsciously tucked and rolled, we all will go into some life
preserving mode in sudden crisis like a crash. Not having time to
consider or even remembering the event is irrelevant. If you *feel*
that the helmet is protecting your head, then you will automatically
respond as though it is protected. And as Joseph pointed out, the fact
that the helmet sticks out several inches makes it much more likely to
impact the ground (hard) in a tumbling situation. The net result is
that helmeted head impacts *should* ocurr at a significantly higher
rate than non-helmeted head impacts... given similar crash scenarios.
If the goal is to keep your head from getting skinned up, then the old
hairnet seems like a much better choice than a helmet. Frankly, I wish
that they would design helmets with a much thinner shell... and
without "spoilers" on the back.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:30:23
From: Dan Becker
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190823739.279388.133810@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >, Ron
Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> If the goal is to keep your head from getting skinned up, then the old
> hairnet seems like a much better choice than a helmet. Frankly, I wish
> that they would design helmets with a much thinner shell... and
> without "spoilers" on the back.
I'd wear something like that. Avoiding "skinned up" is all I am looking
for a helmet to provide.
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:58:51
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Per Ron Ruff:
>If the goal is to keep your head from getting skinned up, then the old
>hairnet seems like a much better choice than a helmet. Frankly, I wish
>that they would design helmets with a much thinner shell... and
>without "spoilers" on the back.
That's what I went over to for windsurfing when beyond my normal
comfort/experience level. It's called a Gath. Kind of a
minimalist, low-profile/low-drag design. Reason I switched was
that *twice* I got my neck tweaked when hitting the water at
maybe 18-20 mph. Second time I was just laying there unable to
feel anything in my hands.
It undoubtedly doesn't offer all the technical brain-acceleration
protection of a "real" helmet... but I have to trade that off
against getting my neck wrenched. Also, I've eaten my waveski a
couple of times and it's worked 100%.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:45:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 25, 11:09 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in
>> Ron's hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider
>> whether he or she is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just
>> ridiculous, as you aptly describe.
>
> Odd... when I read his post I thought it bolstered my argument.
Read it again. (Strange that you deleted not only his account but also his
identity.)
> Just
> as he subconsciously tucked and rolled, we all will go into some life
> preserving mode in sudden crisis like a crash. Not having time to
> consider or even remembering the event is irrelevant. If you *feel*
> that the helmet is protecting your head, then you will automatically
> respond as though it is protected. And as Joseph pointed out, the fact
> that the helmet sticks out several inches makes it much more likely to
> impact the ground (hard) in a tumbling situation. The net result is
> that helmeted head impacts *should* ocurr at a significantly higher
> rate than non-helmeted head impacts... given similar crash scenarios.
>
> If the goal is to keep your head from getting skinned up, then the old
> hairnet seems like a much better choice than a helmet. Frankly, I wish
> that they would design helmets with a much thinner shell... and
> without "spoilers" on the back.
If I suddenly get knocked off my bike, instinct takes over 100%. There is
no time nor inclination to consider, "Hey, I've got a helmet on so I don't
need to protect my head as much as I would if I didn't" or anything close to
that -- subconcious or not.
This is why Dan Becker (had to go look since you trimmed him) wrote FIRST:
"I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and 'subconscious'
actions. My testimonial:"
Odd that you'd say, "Odd... when I read his post I thought it bolstered my
argument." when in fact he introduced it by saying he disagreed with it.
Odd, indeed...
BS
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:05:45
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com >
wrote:
> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of
> cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
A more interesting statistic would be the rate of serious injury or
death among the racing or club membership population. At least then
would could assume that they know how to ride and we can take a guess
at an avg yearly mileage. I remember seeing some stats from a major
national club that were insanely low... but I wonder how they presumed
to know this information? Dead members are unlikely to call the head
office and report what happened...
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 06:27:41
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article
<1190822745.343518.108060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
> few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
Many people have reported here that they have known
people killed on a bicycle, and know of other people
killed on a bicycle. How do we know that many of these
fatalities have not been reported multiple times? This
is not an idle musing. Everybody knows many people, and
they all know many people. Also the combinatorics enter
in. Look up the "birthday paradox" if you do not know
what it is. How many people have mentioned the death of
Ken K.? Repetition of the same fatalities can give a
misleading impression.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:17:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1190822745.343518.108060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
>> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew
>> a few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
>> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
>> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>
> Many people have reported here that they have known
> people killed on a bicycle, and know of other people
> killed on a bicycle. How do we know that many of these
> fatalities have not been reported multiple times? This
> is not an idle musing. Everybody knows many people, and
> they all know many people. Also the combinatorics enter
> in. Look up the "birthday paradox" if you do not know
> what it is. How many people have mentioned the death of
> Ken K.? Repetition of the same fatalities can give a
> misleading impression.
Why did you snip the claim that prompted Ron's question(s)? Do you agree
with this:
"The rate of death, for example, of ALL forms of cycling, helmeted or not,
is on the order of one per 450 years of
cycling non-stop 24 hours a day."
Wow, if we all know of the SAME incidents, then practically NO ONE EVER GETS
KILLED WHILE CYCLING!!!
HTH (but know it won't)
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:37:52
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <46fb5900$0$19653$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1190822745.343518.108060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
> >> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew
> >> a few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
> >> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
> >> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
> >
> > Many people have reported here that they have known
> > people killed on a bicycle, and know of other people
> > killed on a bicycle. How do we know that many of these
> > fatalities have not been reported multiple times? This
> > is not an idle musing. Everybody knows many people, and
> > they all know many people. Also the combinatorics enter
> > in. Look up the "birthday paradox" if you do not know
> > what it is. How many people have mentioned the death of
> > Ken K.? Repetition of the same fatalities can give a
> > misleading impression.
>
> Why did you snip the claim that prompted Ron's question(s)? Do you agree
> with this:
>
> "The rate of death, for example, of ALL forms of cycling, helmeted or not,
> is on the order of one per 450 years of
> cycling non-stop 24 hours a day."
>
> Wow, if we all know of the SAME incidents, then practically NO ONE EVER GETS
> KILLED WHILE CYCLING!!!
>
> HTH (but know it won't)
Bill: there are about 1200 licensed road racers in the province of
British Columbia. I know of three who have died in riding incidents in
the last 15 or so years.
Now mind you, of those three, I have heard of two of them (both died
before I entered the sport) and actually met the third rider personally
(though I knew him only slightly, I know his riding companion from that
fatal day quite well).
One of the three probably wasn't a licensed racer when he died. So
really, we're talking two deaths in 15 years out of a population of 1200
riders, but there were probably one or two racing cyclists who died in
action in that time that I didn't hear about.
That makes something like 3-4 deaths per 18000 real-years of serious
cycling exposure, amount of time per year of cycling not specified.
But it suggests a rate of about one death for every 6000 or so
real-years of serious cycling exposure. It's not too far-fetched to
assume that each licensed rider's exposure is in the order of 1/20th of
their life, which is like riding for 8.4 hours a week. So to figure out
"continuous years of cycling", we divide that 6000 by 20, makes... 300
years.
Which is astonishingly close to that 450 years of cycling non-stop
estimate.
And yet, I've heard of three of these unlikely deaths! And yet, it
doesn't contradict the stats that it is so.
In my life, I have lost one acquaintance to a cycling incident, a
grandmother and two high school classmates to car crashes (class of 100
at graduation; both died before the 10th reunion), maybe dozens to
cancer, at least two to misadventure, a whole bunch to what is best
classified as old age, and that's all off the top of my head. Oh, and
one or two motorcycling friends died along the way, too.
The fact is that deaths -- especially deaths that are memorable, sudden,
and coincide with a particular interest of yours -- stick in the mind.
My father could probably give you a detailed list of all the men aged
40-60 who died of heart attacks and whose funeral he has attended in the
last decade or so. Funny how those ones seem to really catch his mind....
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:23:35
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:05:45 -0700, Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> wrote:
>> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
>> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of
>> cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
>
> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
> few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>
You need to go to www.cyclehelmets.org and do a bit of reading.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:02:09
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
_ wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:05:45 -0700, Ron Ruff wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
>>> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of
>>> cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
>> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
>> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
>> few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
>> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
>> that. I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>>
>
> You need to go to www.cyclehelmets.org and do a bit of reading.
Oh yeah, they're a web site that evaluates the facts in an unbiased
manner---not.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:35:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190822745.343518.108060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> wrote:
> > The rate of death, for example, of ALL forms of cycling, helmeted
> > or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of cycling non-stop 24
> > hours a day.
>
> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew
> a few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
We've had a rash of them here in the last month- a guy got run over by a
school bus, a kid was hit by a car, another guy was beaten to death
while riding his bike, etc.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:06:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1190822745.343518.108060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The rate of death, for example, of ALL forms of cycling, helmeted
>>> or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of cycling non-stop 24
>>> hours a day.
>>
>> Is this true? How is this determined? Cyclists are a fairly small
>> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew
>> a few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
>
> We've had a rash of them here in the last month- a guy got run over
> by a school bus, a kid was hit by a car, another guy was beaten to
> death while riding his bike, etc.
Well then we're all safe for the next...3000 years! Going by
/statistics/...
LOL
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:37:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:39 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
> wrote:
>> The rate of death, for example, of ALL
>> forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450
>> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
> Is this true?
No.
> How is this determined?
Creative numeric massagery. HTH
> Cyclists are a fairly small
> population in the US and I don't know that many people... but I knew a
> few cyclists who have been killed... and know *of* many more.
So you must be...over 2500 years old! LOL
> Unfortunately, I have no way of making meaningful statistics from
> that.
Hey, you're on to something.
> I've known people who died in car crashes too...
>
> A more interesting statistic would be the rate of serious injury or
> death among the racing or club membership population. At least then
> would could assume that they know how to ride and we can take a guess
> at an avg yearly mileage. I remember seeing some stats from a major
> national club that were insanely low... but I wonder how they presumed
> to know this information? Dead members are unlikely to call the head
> office and report what happened...
Using whole population studies to decide whether to wear a helmet is
ludicrous. What matters is personal experience, riding style, risk
tolerance and CHOICE. (Hey, I should stroll thru Harlem at 1:00 AM with
$100 bills stufffed in my shirt pockets. After all, /whole population
studies/ say my risk of getting mugged is miniscule! Same exact thing.)
Bill "Flailor's still got it, I see" S.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:52:33
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:07:21 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
>So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
>"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
>like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
>to my detriment?
The only type of crash I can envision where I KNOW a helmet helps is
one where hail is hitting my head. Only had that happen twice, but
once it was at least a quarter of a mile before I got to better
shelter.
It might also help during helmet effectiveness discussions, when I
want to bang my head against a wall. Might hurt the wall, though.
Pat
Email address works as is.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:36:44
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 11:19 am, "p.k." <designer3579-n...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> >. But if we take a leap of
> > faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
> > significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
> > of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
> > lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
> > of others. If that's the case, then why bother?
>
> Because what happens at the population level is different from the level of
> the individual.
>
> Taking your premise "helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
> significant protection against fatal head injury" the stats do not show if
> it is the same populations being killed. If inexperienced cyclists are
> encouraged to cycle weaning a helmet and are killed in disproportionate
> numbers while helmets at the same time do protect experienced cyclists who
> do not take unnecessary risks, the overall population stats could be as we
> find them but to you as an individual, experienced cyclist the helmet would
> provide protection.
>
> pk
That's just what I was trying to find words for! Or if we assume that
all deaths are winos who presumably don't wear helmets, the helmet use
of those not killed makes no difference anyway.
As has been shown in other threads, deaths are so infrequent, perhaps
they are not worth using as a measure of helmet safety.
It makes sense to me that in some circumstances a helmet can be the
cause of injury that otherwise would not have happened, or would have
been more mild without a helmet. It also makes sense that in certain
types of crashes a helmet can provide significant protection from both
minor and serious injury.
It also makes sense to me that for populations or as a policy thing
that helmet usage apparently doesn't accomplish it's goal.
But I can't reconcile these things into what this means for me as an
individual.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:10:52
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Joseph Santaniello wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
> > helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
> > if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
> > or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
> > entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
> > the data.
>
> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> upside?
It's in the total yearly fatalities statistics for bicyclists. I've
seen the tables time and again from different sources over the years,
though I don't have a handy link for you at the moment. (USDOT's
Fatality Analysis Reporting System is usable for this, but at the
moment they only list totals for the years since 1994.) The number of
bicyclists killed while riding has remained about the same in
proportion to the total number of bicyclists for the time span of
interest-- from the '80s when helmet use approximated 0% to the
present day, when helmet use approximates 50%. If helmets worked as
advertised overall, the trend would be reflected in the fatalities.
But it isn't.
If helmets don't protect us to any significant degree, which is the
simplest explanation for their lack of effect on cycling-related
fatalities, then we shouldn't wear them. But if we take a leap of
faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
of others. If that's the case, then why bother?
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:06:00
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190797852.903053.225910@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to
> > > me if helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of
> > > some sorts, if at the same time they increase the overall
> > > likelihood of accident, or the incidence other sorts of injury,
> > > enough to cancel out the entire benefit of wearing one. And I
> > > can't see how else to interpret the data.
> >
> > That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> > feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> > qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> > upside?
>
> It's in the total yearly fatalities statistics for bicyclists. I've
> seen the tables time and again from different sources over the years,
> though I don't have a handy link for you at the moment. (USDOT's
> Fatality Analysis Reporting System is usable for this, but at the
> moment they only list totals for the years since 1994.) The number
> of bicyclists killed while riding has remained about the same in
> proportion to the total number of bicyclists for the time span of
> interest-- from the '80s when helmet use approximated 0% to the
> present day, when helmet use approximates 50%. If helmets worked as
> advertised overall, the trend would be reflected in the fatalities.
> But it isn't.
The best documented case is Australia, which enacted a mandatory helmet
law. The head injury rate for cyclists went up not down, and it
appeared that what happened was that many cyclists gave up riding and
that the main protective factor for cyclists is having more of us on the
roads. The more of us there are, the more aware drivers tend to be of
cyclists.
Spain enacted some kind of mandatory helmet law a few years back. I've
never heard how that went and what the results, if any, were.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:55:18
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> The best documented case is Australia, which enacted a mandatory helmet
> law. The head injury rate for cyclists went up not down, and it
> appeared that what happened was that many cyclists gave up riding and
> that the main protective factor for cyclists is having more of us on the
> roads. The more of us there are, the more aware drivers tend to be of
> cyclists.
>
> Spain enacted some kind of mandatory helmet law a few years back. I've
> never heard how that went and what the results, if any, were.
I spend most of my time in the motorcycle world where the debate very
closely mirrors the one in the bicycle world. The chief 'anti' argument
in motorcycles is that, for a variety of theories, your chances of being
in a mishap is greater with a helmet than without. I have no information
to say if that's true or not.
What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the basis of
mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to legislate helmets out
of existence but the pro's seem to favor mandatory use laws. They try to
use helmet as a public health issue.
I think the fervor against helmets in both worlds is due to the
perceived threat that the pro's will force their POV upon all of us. I
personally wear a helmet on the motorcycle but rarely on a bicycle.
Still, I enjoy being free to choose which to me, is the crux of the debate.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:48:55
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:55:18 -0600, Paul Cassel wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>>
>> The best documented case is Australia, which enacted a mandatory helmet
>> law. The head injury rate for cyclists went up not down, and it
>> appeared that what happened was that many cyclists gave up riding and
>> that the main protective factor for cyclists is having more of us on the
>> roads. The more of us there are, the more aware drivers tend to be of
>> cyclists.
>>
> What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the basis of
> mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to legislate helmets out
> of existence but the pro's seem to favor mandatory use laws. They try to
> use helmet as a public health issue.
>
> I think the fervor against helmets in both worlds is due to the
> perceived threat that the pro's will force their POV upon all of us. I
> personally wear a helmet on the motorcycle but rarely on a bicycle.
> Still, I enjoy being free to choose which to me, is the crux of the debate.
That is so true.
Politicians generally do not lead, but follow. As more and more people
become convinced that cycling is dangerous and helmets must be worn, the
politicians find it easier and easier to pass legislation to compel their
use (some even have the temerity to state this outright). In the USofA,
this is most clearly seen in California, where the first MHL was enacted,
and today millions people are required to wear a helmet if they wish to
cycle.
We have a poster here whom I believe lives in California, and he is
virulently pro-helmet, to the point where he conducts diatribes against
helmet skeptics; an example of politicians getting the kind of electorate
they deserve, I suppose.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:50:19
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
_ wrote:
> That is so true.
>
> Politicians generally do not lead, but follow. As more and more people
> become convinced that cycling is dangerous and helmets must be worn, the
> politicians find it easier and easier to pass legislation to compel their
> use (some even have the temerity to state this outright). In the USofA,
> this is most clearly seen in California, where the first MHL was enacted,
> and today millions people are required to wear a helmet if they wish to
> cycle.
>
> We have a poster here whom I believe lives in California, and he is
> virulently pro-helmet, to the point where he conducts diatribes against
> helmet skeptics; an example of politicians getting the kind of electorate
> they deserve, I suppose.
Helmet use is mandated in all of CA now? I had no idea things had become
so bad. Curiously, last I checked, motorcycle helmet use was optional.
Then again, motorcyclists have ABATE which fights restrictions on
motorcycles.
BTW, I'm of the opinion (hardly original) that a pic of a family all
riding bicycles is a pleasant one, but put all the characters in helmets
and it looks like they are daredevils. Hardly the impression we wish to
convey - ride a bicycle and you may die.
-paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:21:39
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:50:19 -0600, Paul Cassel wrote:
> _ wrote:
>
>> That is so true.
>>
>> Politicians generally do not lead, but follow. As more and more people
>> become convinced that cycling is dangerous and helmets must be worn, the
>> politicians find it easier and easier to pass legislation to compel their
>> use (some even have the temerity to state this outright). In the USofA,
>> this is most clearly seen in California, where the first MHL was enacted,
>> and today millions people are required to wear a helmet if they wish to
>> cycle.
>>
>> We have a poster here whom I believe lives in California, and he is
>> virulently pro-helmet, to the point where he conducts diatribes against
>> helmet skeptics; an example of politicians getting the kind of electorate
>> they deserve, I suppose.
>
> Helmet use is mandated in all of CA now? I had no idea things had become
> so bad. Curiously, last I checked, motorcycle helmet use was optional.
> Then again, motorcyclists have ABATE which fights restrictions on
> motorcycles.
>
> BTW, I'm of the opinion (hardly original) that a pic of a family all
> riding bicycles is a pleasant one, but put all the characters in helmets
> and it looks like they are daredevils. Hardly the impression we wish to
> convey - ride a bicycle and you may die.
California enacted the first cycle helmet law, and has continued over the
past two decades to expand the requirements for helmet use. Currently
anyone under the age of 18 must wear one, and there are also laws requiring
their use for people on scooters (the push- kind), skateboards, and inline
skates. One jurisdiction in California now requires that all cyclists of
any age wear helmets. Working from population statistics a reasonable
estimate is that something between 10 and 12 millions of California
residents must wear a helmet while cycling.
It would not be at all surprising that the legistators are deliberately
nibbling away at the citizens freedom of choice - get them young, and then
later when more laws are passed requiring all ages the resistance will be
muted.
"Ride a bike and you may die" - hardly an image that would encourage
cycling.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:24:04
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Paul Cassel wrote:
> _ wrote:
>
>> That is so true.
>>
>> Politicians generally do not lead, but follow. As more and more
>> people become convinced that cycling is dangerous and helmets must
>> be worn, the politicians find it easier and easier to pass
>> legislation to compel their use (some even have the temerity to
>> state this outright). In the USofA, this is most clearly seen in
>> California, where the first MHL was enacted, and today millions
>> people are required to wear a helmet if they wish to cycle.
>>
>> We have a poster here whom I believe lives in California, and he is
>> virulently pro-helmet, to the point where he conducts diatribes
>> against helmet skeptics; an example of politicians getting the kind
>> of electorate they deserve, I suppose.
>
> Helmet use is mandated in all of CA now?
Umm... No. You don't identify who you're quoting, but if it's Flailor then
you can be sure he's lying/deflecting/deceiving. HTH (Hint: there may be
a CHILD MHL here -- not even sure about that -- but there sure as hell is
NOT an adult MHL in CA.)
> I had no idea things had
> become so bad.
They haven't. You're being LIED TO.
> Curiously, last I checked, motorcycle helmet use was
> optional. Then again, motorcyclists have ABATE which fights
> restrictions on motorcycles.
>
> BTW, I'm of the opinion (hardly original) that a pic of a family all
> riding bicycles is a pleasant one, but put all the characters in
> helmets and it looks like they are daredevils. Hardly the impression
> we wish to convey - ride a bicycle and you may die.
Drama queen much?
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:20:27
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Paul Cassel wrote:
> What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the basis of
> mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to legislate helmets
> out of existence but the pro's seem to favor mandatory use laws. They
> try to use helmet as a public health issue.
Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use gets one
accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more virulent AHZs do seem
to advocate getting rid of lids altogether. They argue everything from
they're dangerous to their use is tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
> I think the fervor against helmets in both worlds is due to the
> perceived threat that the pro's will force their POV upon all of us. I
> personally wear a helmet on the motorcycle but rarely on a bicycle.
> Still, I enjoy being free to choose which to me, is the crux of the
> debate.
Again, not around here.
Bill "choice" S.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:47:14
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use gets one
> accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more virulent AHZs do seem
> to advocate getting rid of lids altogether. They argue everything from
> they're dangerous to their use is tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
>
OK, Bill, then will you agree that given the tenor of society at
present, if the helmet crowd loudly crows that wearing a helmet makes
one safer, then isn't that inviting the unwanted attention of legislators?
I also think that informal observation strongly indicates that mandatory
helmet laws discourage bicycle use. Surely we're all for more bicycle
use here, aren't we? Then isn't it incumbent upon us to shut up about
something which will discourage what we wish to encourage?
-paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:10:59
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:47:14 -0600, Paul Cassel wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use gets one
>> accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more virulent AHZs do seem
>> to advocate getting rid of lids altogether. They argue everything from
>> they're dangerous to their use is tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
>>
> OK, Bill, then will you agree that given the tenor of society at
> present, if the helmet crowd loudly crows that wearing a helmet makes
> one safer, then isn't that inviting the unwanted attention of legislators?
>
> I also think that informal observation strongly indicates that mandatory
> helmet laws discourage bicycle use. Surely we're all for more bicycle
> use here, aren't we? Then isn't it incumbent upon us to shut up about
> something which will discourage what we wish to encourage?
>
It's not just informal observation - it's documented in peer-reviewed,
replicated studies; and the factor which is most greatly correlated with
reduction of injury to cyclists is the number of them on the road - the
more of us there are, the safer we each are.
And the bit about legislation following increased voluntary use is straight
from the mouths of politicians...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:20:27
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Paul Cassel wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use
>> gets one accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more
>> virulent AHZs do seem to advocate getting rid of lids altogether. They
>> argue everything from they're dangerous to their use is
>> tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
> OK, Bill, then will you agree that given the tenor of society at
> present, if the helmet crowd loudly crows that wearing a helmet makes
> one safer, then isn't that inviting the unwanted attention of
> legislators?
Umm... I started buying bikes as an adult in 1996 -- first mountain bikes,
then road in 2003 or 4. No one crowed at me to buy helmets; nor would I
have ever thought to crow at anyone else about it except for these insipid
on-line discussions.
Do what the hell you want and leave me the hell alone. Is that so hard?
> I also think that informal observation strongly indicates that
> mandatory helmet laws discourage bicycle use. Surely we're all for
> more bicycle use here, aren't we? Then isn't it incumbent upon us to shut
> up about
> something which will discourage what we wish to encourage?
The vast majority of people who choose to cycle lidded are not in favor of
MHLs. That doesn't mean that they have to cower in silence when wacko AHZ
nutjobs try to monopolize the bandwidth. (And ironically, I think the AHZs
are drawing attention to helmets more and more, and MAY cause more MHLs to
be enacted than if they'd just STFU.)
HTH (but know better)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:25:40
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <46fa78bb$0$11087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Paul Cassel wrote:
>
> > What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the basis
> > of mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to legislate
> > helmets out of existence but the pro's seem to favor mandatory use
> > laws. They try to use helmet as a public health issue.
>
> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use
> gets one accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more
> virulent AHZs do seem to advocate getting rid of lids altogether.
> They argue everything from they're dangerous to their use is
> tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
To correct your diatribe, Bill, there are *a couple* of people who do
this, one of whom (Avery) has hardly posted in years. The rest of us
just want to preserve individual choice. Certainly you, as a
conservative, are not against people having the chance to make up their
own minds.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:13:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46fa78bb$0$11087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Paul Cassel wrote:
>>
>>> What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the basis
>>> of mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to legislate
>>> helmets out of existence but the pro's seem to favor mandatory use
>>> laws. They try to use helmet as a public health issue.
>>
>> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use
>> gets one accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more
>> virulent AHZs do seem to advocate getting rid of lids altogether.
>> They argue everything from they're dangerous to their use is
>> tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
>
> To correct your diatribe, Bill, there are *a couple* of people who do
> this, one of whom (Avery) has hardly posted in years.
I was thinking mostly of Flailor, who apparently posted in this very thread.
He flat out states that people who CHOOSE to wear lids are ENDANGERING
CYCLISTS because MHLs are more likely to be passed as a result of that
decision. (He also claims that lids are dangerous in and of themselves, due
to bogus rotational force analyses, strap entrapment issues, etc.)
> The rest of us
> just want to preserve individual choice. Certainly you, as a
> conservative, are not against people having the chance to make up
> their own minds.
It's all I ask. (We /could/ get in to free speech discussions, but your
side doesn't fare well in those. Well, honest ones anyway...)
<eg >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:30:48
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <46fae78c$0$26383$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46fa78bb$0$11087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Cassel wrote:
> >>
> >>> What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the
> >>> basis of mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to
> >>> legislate helmets out of existence but the pro's seem to favor
> >>> mandatory use laws. They try to use helmet as a public health
> >>> issue.
> >>
> >> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use
> >> gets one accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more
> >> virulent AHZs do seem to advocate getting rid of lids altogether.
> >> They argue everything from they're dangerous to their use is
> >> tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
> >
> > To correct your diatribe, Bill, there are *a couple* of people who
> > do this, one of whom (Avery) has hardly posted in years.
>
> I was thinking mostly of Flailor, who apparently posted in this very
> thread. He flat out states that people who CHOOSE to wear lids are
> ENDANGERING CYCLISTS because MHLs are more likely to be passed as a
> result of that decision. (He also claims that lids are dangerous in
> and of themselves, due to bogus rotational force analyses, strap
> entrapment issues, etc.)
I will let him agree or rebut as he sees fit.
> > The rest of us just want to preserve individual choice. Certainly
> > you, as a conservative, are not against people having the chance to
> > make up their own minds.
>
> It's all I ask. (We /could/ get in to free speech discussions, but
> your side doesn't fare well in those. Well, honest ones anyway...)
Listening to the Rush Reality Distortion Zone again?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:54:50
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46fae78c$0$26383$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <46fa78bb$0$11087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Cassel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What does bug me about the helmet crowd is that they are the
>>>>> basis of mandatory helmet laws. The anti's aren't trying to
>>>>> legislate helmets out of existence but the pro's seem to favor
>>>>> mandatory use laws. They try to use helmet as a public health
>>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> Totally incorrect. Around here, just being in favor of helmet use
>>>> gets one accused of being pro MHL. (And also, some of the more
>>>> virulent AHZs do seem to advocate getting rid of lids altogether.
>>>> They argue everything from they're dangerous to their use is
>>>> tantamount to favoring MHLs.)
>>>
>>> To correct your diatribe, Bill, there are *a couple* of people who
>>> do this, one of whom (Avery) has hardly posted in years.
>>
>> I was thinking mostly of Flailor, who apparently posted in this very
>> thread. He flat out states that people who CHOOSE to wear lids are
>> ENDANGERING CYCLISTS because MHLs are more likely to be passed as a
>> result of that decision. (He also claims that lids are dangerous in
>> and of themselves, due to bogus rotational force analyses, strap
>> entrapment issues, etc.)
>
> I will let him agree or rebut as he sees fit.
Plonked him months ago. He lies, distorts and personally attacks purely due
to ideology.
>>> The rest of us just want to preserve individual choice. Certainly
>>> you, as a conservative, are not against people having the chance to
>>> make up their own minds.
>>
>> It's all I ask. (We /could/ get in to free speech discussions, but
>> your side doesn't fare well in those. Well, honest ones anyway...)
>
> Listening to the Rush Reality Distortion Zone again?
Umm, ever see what happens when a conservative tries to speak at Columbia?
Dems won't debate on Fox? Scientists who speak out re. Global Warming
Hysteria are attacked ruthlessly. It goes on and on and on and on. (Oh,
and students are TASED at John Kerry events once they bring up Skull and
Bones. LOL )
Your boy Imanutjob sounded exactly like Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy (except
sober); and of course ol' Hugo just shuts down any objective media.
FREE SPEECH FOR ALL WHO AGREE WITH US! Go watch Olbermann and leave it at
that...
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:50:35
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:10:52 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> Joseph Santaniello wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>>> the data.
>>
>> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
>> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
>> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
>> upside?
>
> It's in the total yearly fatalities statistics for bicyclists. I've
> seen the tables time and again from different sources over the years,
> though I don't have a handy link for you at the moment. (USDOT's
> Fatality Analysis Reporting System is usable for this, but at the
> moment they only list totals for the years since 1994.) The number of
> bicyclists killed while riding has remained about the same in
> proportion to the total number of bicyclists for the time span of
> interest-- from the '80s when helmet use approximated 0% to the
> present day, when helmet use approximates 50%. If helmets worked as
> advertised overall, the trend would be reflected in the fatalities.
> But it isn't.
>
> If helmets don't protect us to any significant degree, which is the
> simplest explanation for their lack of effect on cycling-related
> fatalities, then we shouldn't wear them. But if we take a leap of
> faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
> significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
> of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
> lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
> of others. If that's the case, then why bother?
>
> Chalo
The evidence is even better than that - you just have to look at the areas
where helmet compulsion was introduced - there are huge sudden increases in
helmet-wearing, and no changes in injury rate.
The whole helmet-thing is counter-intuitive to people who can't think above
a Paris Hilton level. On r.b.t., those people are merely an annoyance, but
because enough of our politicians also act as though that's the limit of
their intellectual capacity we get more and more MHLs. I see no reason to
encourage them in this practice.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:19:01
From: p.k.
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Chalo wrote:
>. But if we take a leap of
> faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
> significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
> of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
> lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
> of others. If that's the case, then why bother?
Because what happens at the population level is different from the level of
the individual.
Taking your premise "helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury" the stats do not show if
it is the same populations being killed. If inexperienced cyclists are
encouraged to cycle weaning a helmet and are killed in disproportionate
numbers while helmets at the same time do protect experienced cyclists who
do not take unnecessary risks, the overall population stats could be as we
find them but to you as an individual, experienced cyclist the helmet would
provide protection.
pk
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 11:02:00
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:19:01 +0100, p.k. wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>>. But if we take a leap of
>> faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
>> significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
>> of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
>> lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
>> of others. If that's the case, then why bother?
>
>
> Because what happens at the population level is different from the level of
> the individual.
>
> Taking your premise "helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
> significant protection against fatal head injury" the stats do not show if
> it is the same populations being killed. If inexperienced cyclists are
> encouraged to cycle weaning a helmet and are killed in disproportionate
> numbers while helmets at the same time do protect experienced cyclists who
> do not take unnecessary risks, the overall population stats could be as we
> find them but to you as an individual, experienced cyclist the helmet would
> provide protection.
>
> pk
I rather suspect that the population studies show this to be not so. It
may depend, of course, on your definition of "experienced" - but in all
those studies where helmet compulsion was introduced, helmet wearing rates
shot up, and the injury rates did not change.
If "experienced" cyclists had a different injury rate with and without
helmets compared to "inexperienced" cyclists with and without, the only way
we would see the results we have requires that the difference in rate must
be so small that it is insignificant, or that it is
a) different in sign, and
b) exactly balanced by the differences in the size of the two
sub-populations
In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Cycling is not dangerous enough to
need a helmet, even if they did work.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:30:08
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Per _:
>In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Cycling is not dangerous enough to
>need a helmet, even if they did work.
Understood that this is rec.bicycles.tech and not alt.mtb...
Having said that, one needs to distinguish between somebody
riding down a paved road and an ATB rider bouncing through a
garden of baby heads.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:39:35
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:30:08 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per _:
>>In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Cycling is not dangerous enough to
>>need a helmet, even if they did work.
>
> Understood that this is rec.bicycles.tech and not alt.mtb...
>
> Having said that, one needs to distinguish between somebody
> riding down a paved road and an ATB rider bouncing through a
> garden of baby heads.
Why do you think that matters? The rate of death, for example, of ALL
forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450 years of
cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
If MTB cycling is 10 times more dangerous than the road cycling, it is
still not dangerous enough to require a helmet - even if they did work.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:28:21
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1l53hjb6ubs5a$.1tdwmj8kyr16k$.dlg@40tude.net >,
_ <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:30:08 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > Per _:
> >>In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Cycling is not dangerous
> >>enough to need a helmet, even if they did work.
> >
> > Understood that this is rec.bicycles.tech and not alt.mtb...
> >
> > Having said that, one needs to distinguish between somebody riding
> > down a paved road and an ATB rider bouncing through a garden of
> > baby heads.
>
> Why do you think that matters? The rate of death, for example, of
> ALL forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450
> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health's report a few years
back, there were twice as many brain injuries in "non motor vehicle
traffic" bike crashes versus "motor vehicle traffic" bike crashes. The
latter are probably almost totally road biking related; the latter could
be a mix (e.g., bike trails as well as off-road riding):
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/topic/tbi/tbi_tabl.PDF
There are some more recent discussions, which I only skimmed and didn't
find to have much specific information related to cycling. One thing I
noted is that motorcyclists and pedestrians both were struck by cars at
three times the numbers of cyclists struck by cars.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/edtbi.pdf
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/tbi9803.pdf
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/tbi9397/index.cfm
> If MTB cycling is 10 times more dangerous than the road cycling, it
> is still not dangerous enough to require a helmet - even if they did
> work.
And here is MNDoH's information on brain injuries and helmets, not only
for cyclists but equestrians and other sports (unfortunately these are
just tables with no context, so I found the data very difficult to
interpret):
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/tbi9397/tbi9397_tab36.pdf
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/tbi9397/tbi9397_tab35.pdf
Here is the central page with links to the various reports:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/injury/pub/tbi9397/index.cfm
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:06:16
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:28:21 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1l53hjb6ubs5a$.1tdwmj8kyr16k$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> _ <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:30:08 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>
>>> Per _:
>>>>In the end, though, it doesn't matter. Cycling is not dangerous
>>>>enough to need a helmet, even if they did work.
>>>
>>> Understood that this is rec.bicycles.tech and not alt.mtb...
>>>
>>> Having said that, one needs to distinguish between somebody riding
>>> down a paved road and an ATB rider bouncing through a garden of
>>> baby heads.
>>
>> Why do you think that matters? The rate of death, for example, of
>> ALL forms of cycling, helmeted or not, is on the order of one per 450
>> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.
>
> According to the Minnesota Department of Health's report a few years
> back, there were twice as many brain injuries in "non motor vehicle
> traffic" bike crashes versus "motor vehicle traffic" bike crashes. The
> latter are probably almost totally road biking related; the latter could
> be a mix (e.g., bike trails as well as off-road riding):
>
Numbers of injuries are useless by themselves. You need exposure data as
well. What is the social value of the difference between (using the value
of two you provide, and assuming for the sake of simplicity that on-road
and off-road exposue is equal) one death per 112 years of cycling non-stop
24 hours a day and one per 562 years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day?
They are BOTH extremely small risks - and anyone who can do maths can draw
the obvious conclusion.
And after that, you need to know what sort of numbers/exposures exist for
other activities.
If that is not available, there is no argument for helmets, and hence for
helmet compulsion.
If it is available, the numbers must show that helmets make a significant
difference, and that the rate of injury without them is larger than that
for other activities by an amount large enough that the reduction is
sufficient to offset the costs associated with their use and/or compulsion,
where the other activities do not have helmet use and/or compulsion.
The above is sufficiently complex that people who post things like:
"It's really not that complicated"
as a reason for wearing a cycle helmet are only revealing that they have
not - or can not - think it through.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:51:59
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Per _:
>Why do you think that matters?
Point loading.
Same reason I was glad to have my helmet (which I don't always
wear...) on when I took a 1" deadhead sticking out of an
overhanging branch. Put a nice little hole in the helmet, but
not in my forehead or eye socket.
OTOH, I still wonder what the outcome would have been if that
deadhead had snagged on a helmet strap instead of poking it.
Some years back I saw movie footage of a guy dying when he fell
and hit his head on the edge of a curb. He was going all of 2
mph when it happened. He was already in a standing position when
he fell (he was on a skateboard with a small sail on it).
Hot day, bike path? Helmet? No way Jose'.
Single track with rocks on the side? You betcha.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:14:24
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 4:47 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
> the data.
That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
upside?
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:20:53
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>> the data.
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> upside?
Sure! The question has religious aspects - the same facts, logic and
anecdotes are just as compelling to one view as to its opposite and no
one's opinion ever changes!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:22:27
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
A Muzi wrote:
>
>
> The question has religious aspects - the same facts, logic and
> anecdotes are just as compelling to one view as to its opposite and no
> one's opinion ever changes!
That is pretty much my opinion as well. The arguments are just not
compelling enough to sway most people from the opinion they came in with.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:27:52
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:20:53 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
>> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>>> the data.
>
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
>> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
>> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
>> upside?
>
> Sure! The question has religious aspects - the same facts, logic and
> anecdotes are just as compelling to one view as to its opposite and no
> one's opinion ever changes!
This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics examine
the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value sufficient to
justify their use or compulsion.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:09:03
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
_ wrote:
> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
Highly unlikely that they looked at real evidence then. Most likely they
were over at a web site like "http://www.cyclehelmets.org/". If anyone
were dumb enough to believe that site, they could have become a skeptic
by mistake.
> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics examine
> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value sufficient to
> justify their use or compulsion.
Those people died of massive head injuries prior to being able to
examine the evidence.
What is true is that probably few people decided to support compulsion
after examining the evidence, believing in personal choice. Other than
quite a few ER physicians and nurses, anyway.
Personally I often don't wear a helmet on non-club rides (helmets are
required by my club as a condition of their insurance coverage, as is
the case with most clubs in the U.S. that carry liability insurance to
protect their officers). It's not that I don't believe the evidence,
it's that I also know that bicycling is a relatively safe activity,
despite the helmet versus no-helmet injury data from ERs.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 10:39:43
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
SMS wrote:
> _ wrote:
>
>> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
>> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
>
> Highly unlikely that they looked at real evidence then. Most likely they
> were over at a web site like "http://www.cyclehelmets.org/". If anyone
> were dumb enough to believe that site, they could have become a skeptic
> by mistake.
>
>> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics
>> examine
>> the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value
>> sufficient to
>> justify their use or compulsion.
>
> Those people died of massive head injuries prior to being able to
> examine the evidence.
>
> What is true is that probably few people decided to support compulsion
> after examining the evidence, believing in personal choice. Other than
> quite a few ER physicians and nurses, anyway.
>
> Personally I often don't wear a helmet on non-club rides (helmets are
> required by my club as a condition of their insurance coverage, as is
> the case with most clubs in the U.S. that carry liability insurance to
> protect their officers). It's not that I don't believe the evidence,
> it's that I also know that bicycling is a relatively safe activity,
> despite the helmet versus no-helmet injury data from ERs.
Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on that.
An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and facts right.
Dorfus
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:24:55
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
> they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
> and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on that.
> An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and facts right.
Insurers look at actual evidence. If you look at this thread, you'll see
the usual assortment of clueless individuals postulating, without any
use of facts, on "whole population studies." The reason they do this, I
believe, is not out of actual ignorance, but because they have no other
way to try to justify their position. As soon as you bring up whole
population studies you've lost the helmet debate.
The insurers are looking at accident data, as insurers do. In an
accident, will they have greater exposure or less exposure if the
individual is wearing a helmet. There's really no debate about this
outside places like Usenet, where facts and logic often take a back seat
to emotions and anecdotes. You can look at 100 ER studies and reach the
same conclusion. You can look at individual states accident statistics
(the ones that keep track of helmeted versus non-helmeted in terms of
fatalities and seriousness of injuries) and reach the same conclusion.
Insurers look at actual evidence, not what a web site against helmets
say, and not at stories of walking helmets, driving helmets, etc.
As to our club, we fought the helmet requirement for many years,
successfully, even though most members wore helmets voluntarily. Then
LAW required us to require helmets on all rides in order to get our
liability insurance through them, and they were the best deal for it by
a significant amount. That was the end of the debate, since we could not
raise dues a sufficient amount to obtain insurance elsewhere. Note that
this was in the days of the old LAW, not the current LAB that everyone
seems to complain about.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:19:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
SMS wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>> Why does your clubs insurer insist on the wearing of helmets? Surely
>> they would have looked at the evidence and found that cycling is safe
>> and that helmets don't contribute to safety and made a judgment on
>> that. An insurers very existence depends on getting the maths and
>> facts right.
>
> Insurers look at actual evidence. If you look at this thread, you'll
> see the usual assortment of clueless individuals postulating, without
> any use of facts, on "whole population studies." The reason they do
> this, I believe, is not out of actual ignorance, but because they
> have no other way to try to justify their position. As soon as you
> bring up whole population studies you've lost the helmet debate.
>
> The insurers are looking at accident data, as insurers do. In an
> accident, will they have greater exposure or less exposure if the
> individual is wearing a helmet. There's really no debate about this
> outside places like Usenet, where facts and logic often take a back
> seat to emotions and anecdotes. You can look at 100 ER studies and
> reach the same conclusion. You can look at individual states accident
> statistics (the ones that keep track of helmeted versus non-helmeted
> in terms of fatalities and seriousness of injuries) and reach the
> same conclusion. Insurers look at actual evidence, not what a web
> site against helmets say, and not at stories of walking helmets,
> driving helmets, etc.
> As to our club, we fought the helmet requirement for many years,
> successfully, even though most members wore helmets voluntarily. Then
> LAW required us to require helmets on all rides in order to get our
> liability insurance through them, and they were the best deal for it
> by a significant amount. That was the end of the debate, since we
> could not raise dues a sufficient amount to obtain insurance
> elsewhere. Note that this was in the days of the old LAW, not the
> current LAB that everyone seems to complain about.
Careful. Frank will call you a liar (but only in his weaselly way).
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:25:56
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Per _:
>I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics examine
>the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value sufficient to
>justify their use or compulsion.
You know one now. Not compulsion... just for personal use when
riding off road.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:16:15
From: _
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:25:56 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per _:
>>I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics examine
>>the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value sufficient to
>>justify their use or compulsion.
>
> You know one now. Not compulsion... just for personal use when
> riding off road.
What evidence convinced you, and what level of protective value was
sufficient?
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:20:31
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <q2amgj49f0nu.7rfylta2yrs3$.dlg@40tude.net >,
_ <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:20:53 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
>
> >> Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to
> >>> me if helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of
> >>> some sorts, if at the same time they increase the overall
> >>> likelihood of accident, or the incidence other sorts of injury,
> >>> enough to cancel out the entire benefit of wearing one. And I
> >>> can't see how else to interpret the data.
> >
> > joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> >> That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
> >> feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
> >> qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
> >> upside?
> >
> > Sure! The question has religious aspects - the same facts, logic
> > and anecdotes are just as compelling to one view as to its opposite
> > and no one's opinion ever changes!
>
> This does not seem to be true - there are people who start out as
> pro-helmet, but after seeing the evidence, become helmet skeptics.
I am one of these. But there is a distinction IMHO between being a
helmet skeptic and being "anti-helmet" as Bill S. would have it. I
don't care if people wear helmets, it's a personal choice. I think it's
best to not rely on the helmet to protect your noggin. The best way to
keep your head safe is to not crash and to take responsibility for
yourself and your safety on the road.
> I know of no cases, however, where people who were helmet skeptics
> examine the evidence and become convinced that they are of any value
> sufficient to justify their use or compulsion.
I don't, either, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:10:20
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:14:24 -0000, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Sep 26, 4:47 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
>> helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
>> if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
>> or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
>> entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
>> the data.
>
>That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
>feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
>qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
>upside?
>
>Joseph
Dear Jospeh,
As Chalo explains, bicycle helmets have no significant effect on the
rates of serious head injury and death.
If they were a drug, they'd be dismissed as snake oil--claims of
bicycle helmets reducing serious head injury and death are never
substantiated by any figures for whole populations, such as states,
provinces, or nations.
Going from nearly 0% helmet use to nearly 100% in New Zealand, with a
huge mandatory increase in the middle of the 8-year graph, had no
apparent effect on the gentle and typical downward trend of such
injuries:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/Web/public.nsf/b383cda8149ed78680256aaa00603759/2cc4aaef43ea308880256fec007121fb/Body/91.4A64!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
That is, the green line for bicycle helmet use zooms upward with no
corresponding effect on the red bicycle injury rate or the black
pedestrian injury rate used as a control to rule out other factors.
Things gradually improved at the same rate for both groups, but
helmets had no more effect on the injury rate than hair color.
Who would take a pill that failed so obviously to have any effect? Who
would pass laws requiring everyone to take such pills?
The details (and much more) are here:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/Web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets#theydontwork
Some of the downside or disadvantages that cancel the hoped-for but
never-visible helmet protection effect are:
A) You hit more things that you normally wouldn't--do some
measurements with a ruler and see how much bigger a helmet makes your
head.
B) When you hit things, the size of the helmet gives whatever you hit
more leverage to spin your head--and more and more studies show that
it's the rotational head injuries that are the problem. Your brain can
take a surprisingly powerful straightforward impact, but an abrupt
spin causes diffuse injuries.
C) Risk compensation is our peculiar habit of automatically raising
(and lowering) our level of risk to whatever level we think is "safe",
whether we're right or not. Given safety equipment, we behave more
recklessly. Take the safety equipment away, and we become cautious.
The Munich taxi driver study showed that taxi drivers would speed and
tailgate on days when they were given taxis from the motor pool that
had anti-lock brakes, effectively negating the hoped-for protection of
the brakes.
Helmets provide a marvelous example of how we deny risk compensation,
even while admitting it. A typical exchange on RBT involves asking
people who deny that wearing a helmet makes them ride differently what
they'd do if they lost their helmet half-way through a long ride.
Invariably, they admit that they'd ride more slowly and cautiously, or
(amazingly) even call for someone to give them a ride home rather than
face the terrible perceived risk of bicycling without something
hundreds of millions of bicyclists never use (see any picture of
swarms of Chinese commuter bicyclists).
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:39:07
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> If they were a drug, they'd be dismissed as snake oil--claims of
> bicycle helmets reducing serious head injury and death are never
> substantiated by any figures for whole populations, such as states,
> provinces, or nations.
It's like seat belts or airbags in vehicles. There are so many other
factors in play, that whole population studies are meaningless. What you
have to look at is how seat belts and airbags perform in actual
accidents. Statistically, does the seat belt wearer, or accident victim
protected by a deployed airbag suffer more severe injuries and more
fatalities or less as a result of using the alleged safety equipment?
If you bring up whole population studies you lose the debate by default,
since such studies cannot account for the myriad of other factors.
Once you understand that you have to look at actual accident data rather
than whole population studies, gaging the effectiveness of safety
equipment is much easier. There's little debate about the ER studies
regarding seat belt, airbag, or helmet effectiveness, there's so many of
them and they all reach the same conclusion (with slightly different
numbers). What there _is_ legitimate debate about is whether or not
legislating the use of these safety devices makes sense, both
economically and in terms of personal freedom. Airbags drive up the
price of new cars by at least $100, yet the number of drivers and
passengers that are ever saved by them is very small.
It's interesting how the AHZs always try to frame the debate around
arguments like "xyz country instituted a helmet law and injuries and
fatalities didn't go down, or went up." They are either unable, or
unwilling, to look at the big picture and all the other factors that
come into play in population studies.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:08:55
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 26, 5:14 am, Dan Becker <No...@address.invalid > wrote:
> In article <1190744518.007545.42...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>
> Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If I had hit my
> > > helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> > > around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
>
> > A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
> > tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
> > possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
> > since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
> > helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> > the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
>
> I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and "subconscious"
> actions. My testimonial:
>
> This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
> across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
> (4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
> right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
> vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
> car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.
>
> A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
> bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
> wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
> admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the steerer
> tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was braking hard,
> with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent sideways out of
> line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the bike cartwheeled
> after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in the road beyond me
> after bouncing off the side of one of the cars stopped beyond in the
> left lane.
>
> Boy was I pissed off. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike, and
> threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over to him
> to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of driving
> infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing. (Really
> impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the toss!) How,
> you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?
>
> In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
> activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so young
> I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to be. But
> somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very fast across
> the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who were
> side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
> horizon.
>
> While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
> landed.
>
> It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
> since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
> this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
> certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it safely.
>
> You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the marks,
> dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey and the
> the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human bowling
> ball.
>
> The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
> conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
> because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
> ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
> slow motion for me.
>
> The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
> glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
> landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
> friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
> didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
> bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
> badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
> years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
> cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
> brakes.
>
> I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
> with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
> my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
> road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.
>
> Dan
I had a gym-teacher in grade school who had the exact same thing
happen. He did a perfect dive and tumble, got up and walked back to
the car and said, "Lady, that ain't right."
I think the idea that a helmet impeads a tuck has to do with the mass
of the helmet, and the fact that it's greater size means a tuck has to
be tighter. For the crash you very entertainingly described (glad you
weren't injured even more!) a modern helmet with 4" of styrofoam
sticking off the back might be the last thing you'd want. A slimmer
helmet that doesn't weigh down your head, not protrude too much. Sure
avoiding road rash is nice, but at the potential expense of other
types of injuries?
I like my Carrera "helmet" because it is super light (100g?) and only
adds 1cm to each side. But I'm still wary of using it in circumstances
where I expect high speeds.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 02:47:42
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Benefits must occur only in a very narrow range of impacts.
> Otherwise, massive increases in helmet use would actually produce
> fewer serious head injuries per remaining rider.
That's not a foregone conclusion. If the protective effects of
helmets are large, and the offsetting effects are similarly large,
then the net effect could still be negligible.
> But that benefit has
> not been observed in large, general population studies.
That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
the data.
If you (no, not you, Frank) believe that helmets are of significant
net benefit, then you have to attribute their apparent lack of overall
effectiveness to other factors. I think it's a bit far-fetched to
assume that drivers or traffic patterns with regard to cyclists have
gotten significantly more dangerous over the last 20 years. If a
dramatic rise in helmet use during that time has resulted in no net
improvements in the likelihood of getting killed on the bike, then
what is it that cancels out the assumed protective effect of helmets?
>From where I stand, it simply doesn't matter. If they don't help,
they don't help, and I don't need to use one.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 18:03:48
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 8:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
> subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
> intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!
>
> I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
> wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
> back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
> playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
> but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
> keeping my head from hitting the ice.
>
> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
>
> On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
> the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
> skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
> I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
> wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
> and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
> really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.
>
> So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
> "normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
> like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
> to my detriment?
Gawd, I missed landing a jump on my skis and had the same kind of fall
with no helmet, and I whacked my head on the ice and got knocked out
for a split second and then had a wholloping headache and sore neck.
I now wear a helmet skiing, but primarily to keep my ears warm and
because I have to race my son down elf trails -- or because I
sometimes ski during the summer (wooohooo, one of the benefits of
living in Oregon). Hey, screw up on Palmer glacier and you end up in
a pile of rocks. On the other hand, these helmets probably do add to
rotational injury because they are pretty massive. I really should
read the literature on ski helmets. I still would use one for tree
skiing because I am not that good at it.
As for bicycle helmets, my personal experience has been that they help
reduce or eliminate scalp injury. I had two accidents (ice, pot hole
in the dark) where my head drove straight in to the pavement and the
helmet took a direct blow, and I assume that I escaped at least scalp
injury and maybe skull fracture. Now, my head hurt anyway, and I
could have (and probably did) have some rotational injury -- but at
least I escaped some focal injury. The studies generally find that
helmets do help prevent focal injury. The rub comes with claims that
they prevent death and serious closed head injury. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:25:57
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 8:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
> subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
> intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!
>
> I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
> wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
> back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
> playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
> but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
> keeping my head from hitting the ice.
>
> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
>
> On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
> the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
> skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
> I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
> wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
> and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
> really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.
>
> So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
> "normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
> like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
> to my detriment?
>
> Joseph
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:08:43
From:
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 11:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> ...
> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
I think it's likely. As a teenager, I had an identical experience,
but I was riding a bike on the icy surface. Yes, if I'd worn a
helmet, I would have probably been hurt more than I was, and I might
have believed it "saved my life." As it was, the back of my head
barely touched the ground.
> So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
> "normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
> like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
> to my detriment?
I suppose you might want a helmet for those crashes in which you would
have hit your head anyway; and the impact is strong enough that you
would incur serious injury without the helmet; but the impact is still
gentle enough that it's within the very limited protection capacity of
a helmet.
Oh, and you want it only for linear impacts, because helmets aren't
designed, tested or certified for the more dangerous glancing blows.
The helmet may cause those blows to impart stronger rotational
accelerations than the brain would suffer without the helmet.
Benefits must occur only in a very narrow range of impacts.
Otherwise, massive increases in helmet use would actually produce
fewer serious head injuries per remaining rider. But that benefit has
not been observed in large, general population studies.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:32:32
From: Fred Clydesdale
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190765323.142265.277850@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
hey, what does it matter what he wrote? HERE WE GO AGAIN.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:09:20
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 2:50 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 2:18 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Per Ron Ruff:
>
> > > >So the
> > > >helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> > > >the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
>
> > > Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
> > > helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
> > > 10-15 mph.
>
> > There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.
>
> Are they nudists?
Probably. If they're dirty enough, it's just like a watermelon seed
between your fingers.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 19:50:57
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 9:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2:18 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> > Per Ron Ruff:
>
> > >So the
> > >helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> > >the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
>
> > Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
> > helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
> > 10-15 mph.
>
> There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.
Are they nudists?
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 19:47:19
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 2:18 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid > wrote:
> Per Ron Ruff:
>
> >So the
> >helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> >the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
>
> Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
> helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
> 10-15 mph.
There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 11:21:58
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 23:14:38
From: Dan Becker
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
In article <1190744518.007545.42720@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, Ron
Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I had hit my
> > helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> > around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
>
> A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
> tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
> possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
> since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
> helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and "subconscious"
actions. My testimonial:
This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
(4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.
A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the steerer
tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was braking hard,
with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent sideways out of
line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the bike cartwheeled
after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in the road beyond me
after bouncing off the side of one of the cars stopped beyond in the
left lane.
Boy was I pissed off. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike, and
threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over to him
to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of driving
infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing. (Really
impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the toss!) How,
you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?
In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so young
I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to be. But
somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very fast across
the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who were
side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
horizon.
While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
landed.
It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it safely.
You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the marks,
dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey and the
the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human bowling
ball.
The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
slow motion for me.
The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
brakes.
I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 22:09:56
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Dan Becker wrote:
> In article <1190744518.007545.42720@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If I had hit my
>>> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
>>> gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
>>> helmet?
>>
>> A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will
>> naturally tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this
>> is not possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head
>> so well since it is the only part of our body that has protection.
>> So the helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our
>> necks from the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our
>> lives.
>
> I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and
> "subconscious" actions. My testimonial:
>
> This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
> across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
> (4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
> right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
> vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
> car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.
>
> A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
> bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
> wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
> admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the
> steerer tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was
> braking hard, with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent
> sideways out of line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the
> bike cartwheeled after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in
> the road beyond me after bouncing off the side of one of the cars
> stopped beyond in the left lane.
>
> Boy was I pissed off. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike,
> and threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over
> to him to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of
> driving infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing.
> (Really impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the
> toss!) How, you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?
>
> In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
> activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so
> young I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to
> be. But somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very
> fast across the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who
> were side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
> horizon.
>
> While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
> landed.
>
> It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
> since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
> this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
> certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it
> safely.
>
> You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the
> marks, dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey
> and the the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human
> bowling ball.
>
> The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
> conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
> because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
> ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
> slow motion for me.
>
> The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
> glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
> landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
> friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
> didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
> bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
> badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
> years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
> cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
> brakes.
>
> I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
> with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
> my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
> road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.
Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in Ron's
hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider whether he or she
is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just ridiculous, as you aptly
describe.
I wear a helmet for exactly the kind of unfortunate, unavoidable accident in
which you were involved. Not to save my life, but to lessen my injuries,
pain and suffering.
It's really not that complicated.
Bill "OP trolled after all" S.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:46:44
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Dan Becker wrote:
>> In article <1190744518.007545.42720@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>>> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If I had hit my
>>>> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
>>>> gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
>>>> helmet?
>>> A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will
>>> naturally tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this
>>> is not possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head
>>> so well since it is the only part of our body that has protection.
>>> So the helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our
>>> necks from the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our
>>> lives.
>> I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and
>> "subconscious" actions. My testimonial:
>>
>> This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
>> across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
>> (4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
>> right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
>> vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
>> car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.
>>
>> A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
>> bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
>> wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
>> admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the
>> steerer tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was
>> braking hard, with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent
>> sideways out of line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the
>> bike cartwheeled after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in
>> the road beyond me after bouncing off the side of one of the cars
>> stopped beyond in the left lane.
>>
>> Boy was I pissed off. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike,
>> and threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over
>> to him to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of
>> driving infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing.
>> (Really impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the
>> toss!) How, you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?
>>
>> In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
>> activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so
>> young I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to
>> be. But somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very
>> fast across the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who
>> were side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
>> horizon.
>>
>> While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
>> landed.
>>
>> It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
>> since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
>> this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
>> certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it
>> safely.
>>
>> You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the
>> marks, dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey
>> and the the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human
>> bowling ball.
>>
>> The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
>> conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
>> because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
>> ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
>> slow motion for me.
>>
>> The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
>> glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
>> landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
>> friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
>> didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
>> bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
>> badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
>> years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
>> cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
>> brakes.
>>
>> I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
>> with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
>> my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
>> road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.
>
> Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in Ron's
> hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider whether he or she
> is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just ridiculous, as you aptly
> describe.
>
> I wear a helmet for exactly the kind of unfortunate, unavoidable accident in
> which you were involved. Not to save my life, but to lessen my injuries,
> pain and suffering.
>
> It's really not that complicated.
>
> Bill "OP trolled after all" S.
>
>
You guys can say what you like. I'm more than happy to wear my helmet.
Dorf
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 12:24:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
>> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
>> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
>> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
>> gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
>> helmet?
>
> A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
> tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
> possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
> since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
> helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
> the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
You could write fiction. LOL
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 15:18:40
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
Per Ron Ruff:
>So the
>helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
>the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.
Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
10-15 mph.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 15:37:38
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
> "normal" hemet?
Er, one when you hit the pavement noggin first. I had one of those
freak accidents last week. Forehead got banged up when the front end
lost traction in a turn. Funny thing is, if I had been much of a
helmet wearer, the situation was one where I'd not have bothered
wearing it. I was simply dialing in the rear mech and took a little
test ride and sliiiikaplow! It wouldn't have done jack for my lip and
nose. But meh, stuff heals.
Off road where stuff is pointier would be a good place to have a lid.
It would definitely up the odds for man vs rock. Rocks kill, pavement
just gives you radical scars, man!
Guess I'm good for another ten years of blood free riding....
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 08:20:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmet pondering
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
> subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
> intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!
>
> I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
> wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
> back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
> playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
> but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
> keeping my head from hitting the ice.
>
> So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
> would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
> greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
> around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?
>
> On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
> the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
> skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
> I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
> wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
> and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
> really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.
>
> So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
> "normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
> like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
> to my detriment?
>
> Joseph
Troll.
|
|
