National Helmet Legislation Coming in '00!
Martha Stephenson
I have been riding for about 3 years, my husband about 20 years. I wear a
helmet on long rides, but around the neighborhood, I confess I don't wear
one! I find that in the Texas heat, it is so hot to wear a helmet. My
husband is of the old racing crowd who rode before helmets were required. He
tends not to wear one and when he does, he wears a hairnet. I am for wearing
helmets. I think it is a great idea, but does the government really need to
get in the issue? If motorcyle riders (Texas) can choose, why would it be
any different for bicyclists? The only place I know where we must wear
helmets is when we ride on a nearby miltary base. So if we fall, and hurt
out heads, we can't sue !!
"Jack Dingler" <jdin...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:38358920...@texas.net...
> Yep. If car helmets were required we could possibly save 2500 lives a
> year.
>
> It's too bad that bicycle helmets don't seem to save lives. They are
> great at mitigating minor injuries though!
>
> Jack Dingler
>
> chann...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is a wonderful idea. There are too
> > many crazy drivers out there. The protection of
> > a helmet is better than nothing!
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
Chris Phillipo
Martha Stephenson wrote:
> mste...@accd.edu
> I have been riding for about 3 years, my husband about 20 years. I wear a
> helmet on long rides, but around the neighborhood, I confess I don't wear
> one! I find that in the Texas heat, it is so hot to wear a helmet. My
> husband is of the old racing crowd who rode before helmets were required. He
> tends not to wear one and when he does, he wears a hairnet. I am for wearing
> helmets. I think it is a great idea, but does the government really need to
> get in the issue? If motorcyle riders (Texas) can choose, why would it be
> any different for bicyclists? The only place I know where we must wear
> helmets is when we ride on a nearby miltary base. So if we fall, and hurt
> out heads, we can't sue !!
I thought national laws don't apply to Texas :)
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Ride our island.
http://www.ramsays-online.com <-- (buy bike stuff here)
http://welcome.to/Cape.Breton
Limey
when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
styrofoam cooler?
The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
they will want to be like you.
Why not set a GOOD example for them?
Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"
http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
rjk3
Cutts" <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote:
>Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the
police
>enforce it with instant fines.
>What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a
helmet and cycle
>deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
Can you verify that? I keep seeing studies cited that claim to
find no difference in cyclists' injury rate before and after the
legislation. ;-)
RJK3
>I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off
road, once
>within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who
can thank
>helmet wearing for currently being alive.
>It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort
of thing,
>people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they
dont.
>
>--
>Michael Cutts
>Technical Admin
>** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>
>Limey wrote in message
<10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
johnb913
Governments start to push to enact mandatory helmet laws you can
be sure of one thing, the helmet manufacturers are the ones who
are at the forefront pushing for the laws to be passed. The
politicians who are trying to pass the laws don't give diddly
squat about your health or safety, that's all they care about is
having their pockets lined with campain contributions from the
manufacturers who stand to reap economic windfalls if their
agenda is passed.
As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.
Tom S
the archives. You (plural, i.e. everyone) will most likely find
that what you were planning to say has been said several times
before.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Sherman
1999 Blue RANS TAILWIND/63
2000 Red RANS ROCKET
.O __............O............
_\\__\_........._\\_\-%.......
(_)^ %(_).....(_)^(_)..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Cutts
enforce it with instant fines.
What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
helmet wearing for currently being alive.
It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
>Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>styrofoam cooler?
>
>The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
>that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
>adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
>time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
>they will want to be like you.
>
>Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>
>Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"
>
>http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm
>
>
>
Mike Cutts
conscientious types who only have the good of the country at heart:) (OK end
of political discussion - sorry but I just couldnt help myself)
--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
johnb913 wrote in message <218d1719...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com>...
Brent A. Peterson
Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> styrofoam cooler?
Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.
Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam
of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
work to offset the styrofoam)
> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
Yes, how about seting an example riding is fun and safe. Not
something that is dangerous.
Where I live now there are alot of over
protective parents. The poor kids can only seem to ride if they
have on their helmets, ride on the sidewalk and the parent(s) are
present riding with them. that can't be much fun. The kids sorta
just trod along with the parents.
Where I grew up I still see kids riding without parents, no
helmets either. They seem to be having fun. The big difference
is the example and rules the parents set.
Which group do you think is more likely to produce life-long
cyclists? The group guarded by their parents through cycling or
the ones allowed to have fun with it on their own?
Mike Cutts
I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
down today.
Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
tomorrow.
At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.
--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Dorre
: Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
: enforce it with instant fines.
: What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
: deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
Cyclist head injuries in NZ, as in Aus, have declined
over the years. The problem, as is plainly evident from
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/nz.htm
is that the decline doesn't seem to be related to the change in
helmet wearing! The LTSA did some pretty extensive surveys of
helmet wearing in primary school children, secondary school children
and adults. They provided the data for me, along with numbers
of cyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries (NH) and numbers
admitted with limb fractures but no head injury (NL). Head injury
was defined as skull fracture, or intra-cranial (ie closed head)
injury, including concussion, brain damage or bleeding within the
skull.
The graph shows the percentage of adult cyclists wearing helmets
and 100*NH/(NH+L) ie the percentage of cyclists with head injury,
out of the total admitted with either head or limb injury.
If the change in head injury percentage were due to helmets,
you'd expect it to change with the change in helmet wearing.
But it doesn't. For example, adult helmet wearing (dashed
red line) increased dramatically with the law, but there's no change
whatsoever in the head injury percentage (solid red line) - it just
follows the same trend as that for primary school children, despite
the fact that the latter group had more than 80% helmet wearing
well before the law. In fact, the biggest wiggle in the graph of
head injury rate for primary school children happened in 1995
(after the law), when helmet wearing in this group didn't change
at all.
Based on the available data, it doesn't make sense to
believe that the increased helmet wearing 'caused' the reduction
in head injuries. How could it? Much of the decrease for adults
occured before the increase in helmet wearing!
Unfortunately, there seems to be a vested interest both in
Australia and NZ in trying to justify the helmet laws. So we
get statements like "Head injuries have fallen as helmet wearing
has increased", implying that the one has caused the other, even
though, according to the graph, this is highly unlikely.
: I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
: within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
: helmet wearing for currently being alive.
The funny thing about all this is that, before helmets became
fashionable in the US and required by law in Aus and NZ, you
didn't hear about all these cyclists hitting their heads and
examination of the fatality rates certainly shows the risk of
death from head injury relative to the amount of cycling is
no lower with helmet laws than it was before the laws were
enacted.
There's also some research which shows that helmet wearers
seem to report hitting their heads a lot more often than non
wearers. When I lived in Scotland and used to ride in ice
and snow, I had the occasional skid, possibly hitting thigh
or shoulder, but not my head. I hypothesise that if I had
been wearing a helmet, I might have hit it, because it sticks
out a fair bit more than the head, and the addional weight may
also have an effect.
My guess is that a lot of "my helmet saved my life" stories
stem from the fact that all too many people have an exaggerated
faith in helmets. Perhaps they take more risks. Perhaps they
feel protected and so over ride the natural instinct to keep
the head away from a hard surface when falling. So, they hit
their head and conclude from the dent and their firm belief
that helmets are wonderfully efective that the helmet must have
saved their lives.
However, the reality is shown in the graph of helmet wearing
rates and hospital data. Rather than save lives, I suspect
helmets may possibly cost lives, because people have an exaggerated
faith in them and so take more risks. The only cycling fatality
in my city (for as long as I have data) was a death from head injury
despite wearing a helmet. Simple precautions such as looking carefully
when a cycleway crosses a road and the view is obstructed by parked
cars would have saved him. The helmet didn't.
All this hoo-ha about helmets is diverting attention away
from the issues which really make a difference to cyclist safety,
including proper cycling education (especially effective cycling
techniques), lights at night and enforcement of speed limits and
drink-driving laws.
If the police and the community could spend their time on these
issues, instead of bothering with helmets, you'd see some real
improvements in cyclist safety, instead of the phoney stats
used by politicians and others with a vested interset in helmet laws.
Dorre
: Michael Cutts
Jack Dingler
heard that fewer children cycle in New Zealand now and that is the reason the
death rate is down. Is this true?
Helmet use has increased dramatically in the US over the las few decades and
the deaths rate per cyclist is actually up some.
Jack Dingler
Mike Cutts wrote:
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.
> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
>
> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>
> Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
> >Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> >when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> >styrofoam cooler?
> >
> >The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
> >that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
> >adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
> >time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> >they will want to be like you.
> >
> >Why not set a GOOD example for them?
> >
Jack Dingler
Limey wrote:
> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> styrofoam cooler?
>
When was the last time you saw a warm blooded watermelon? Whe was the last time
you saw a watermelon exercising in 100f+ heat? (Morning temps for much of Texas
in the summer).
Should we put a bag of ice in our helmets before strapping them on?
>
> The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
> that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
> adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
> time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> they will want to be like you.
>
> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>
Kids may not have the experience to determine, when they're suffering the
effects of heat exhaustion. Why encourage them to suffer brain damage from the
heat? Why require them to suffer brain damage from the heat?
Summer conditions in Texas are not conducive for helmets. If kids were forced
to wear them here, they would be unsafe during daylight hours. We have MHLs in
some cities in Texas. They aren't enforced because even the police officers
know it's too hot in the summer to wear a helmet. Few would even bother to get
out of their air conditioned cars to stand in the baking sun to give these kids
a lecture.
The bike cops in the West End at Dallas, do wear helmets but they patrol mostly
evenings. They also wear shorts and short sleeve shirts.
Nice looking Bent by the way. :)
Jack Dingler
them to a park.
It's generally thought that cycling is too dangerous now to be done on
sidewalks and streets.
I think cycling is a dying tradition where children are concerned.
Although bike sales for children has only declined a little over the
last two decades, I think the lifespan of children's bikes has been
reduced dramatically.
One notable datapoint... Local pawn shops have been purchasing bikes
of all types at an increasingly frenzied pace. They then sell them to
brokers who ship them to Mexico. This would suggest that there are
fewer working bikes in the area, than ever before.
Jack Dingler
"Brent A. Peterson" wrote:
> In article <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
> Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> > when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> > styrofoam cooler?
>
> Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
> heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.
>
> Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam
> of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> work to offset the styrofoam)
>
> > Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>
Jack Dingler
city. Have you tried standing at light after light in heavy 5pm traffic with a
helmet on?
How comfortable is your helmet if you wear it whil standing in a Walmart parking
lot, in full sun, from the hours of 2-3pm?
Not everyone rides like you do. Not everyone rides like I do.
I pick and choose the times I wear a helmet. I tried for a while to wear one at
all times while riding, but on Harry Hines in heavy traffic, I swear the
combination of concrete and blowing auto exhaust, brings the temps near the road
past 145f.
Jack Dingler
johnb913 wrote:
> Here in the good ole USA whenever the Federal or State
> Governments start to push to enact mandatory helmet laws you can
> be sure of one thing, the helmet manufacturers are the ones who
> are at the forefront pushing for the laws to be passed. The
> politicians who are trying to pass the laws don't give diddly
> squat about your health or safety, that's all they care about is
> having their pockets lined with campain contributions from the
> manufacturers who stand to reap economic windfalls if their
> agenda is passed.
>
> As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
> it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
> helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
> sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
> stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
> cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
> released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
> idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
> hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
> that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
> sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.
>
Jack Dingler
a helmet, as a person is if they skydive without a parachute? I seems you're
suggesting that cycling without a helmet is certain death.
Do you really believe that cycling under any conditions, is this dangerous?
Jack Dingler
Mike Cutts wrote:
> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
> down today.
> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
> tomorrow.
> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.
>
> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>
> Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Frank Krygowski
Mike Cutts wrote:
>
> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
> down today.
> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible.
This sort of vague notion has been put up here many times. "Oh, but the
world is SO much more dangerous today than ever before!"
Baloney. Look at the numbers. Things are safer today than they were 20
years ago, by almost any measure.
Sure, you can find some city streets where the neighborhoods have become
run down, and in certain cases you can find places where the bad guys
are too much in control. But I ride my bike to work into the center of
the city, and I've been doing it for over 20 years. I have had NO
problems. NONE - despite hand-wringers telling me I'm going to get
shot.
Likewise, you can find streets where the traffic has increased to the
point that riding a bike is much less pleasant. But I assert that most
people simply ride elsewhere. When we talk about kids riding, almost
all their riding is done in residential neighborhoods, and there has
been no significant change in the safety of that sort of riding. Again,
look at the numbers.
The problem with saying "Oh, you can't do that, it's too dangerous now!"
is that the very statement makes things worse - by causing people to
further abandon and avoid inner-city neighborhoods, or by causing people
to say "Wow, I guess bicycling IS too dangerous for my kid!"
> We cant let the
> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
> tomorrow.
I hate it when people start equating riding a bicycle to jumping out of
a plane. Do people not understand that an hour of bicycling without a
helmet is as safe or safer than an hour of riding in a car? That it's
four times safer than an hour of swimming?
> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.
And so are cycling gloves, and elbow and knee pads, and wrist
protectors, and shoulder pads, and shin guards... ah, but those aren't
trendy enough for the hand-wringers to promote! ...yet...
Cycling is _already_ safe enough that you will _certainly_ be able to
ride your bike tomorrow - if you don't do something stupid. If someone
wants to make cycling even safer, it would be much more logical to spend
time talking about educating kids to ride properly. It would be much
more effective than helmets, and it wouldn't require the "cycling is
dangerous" philosophy that underlies the helmet mania.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowski
Mike Cutts wrote:
>
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
How interesting! The data I've seen on New Zealand shows no difference
in head injury statistics, despite sudden surges in helmet wearing!
My data is from the paper published by Scuffham and Langley in Accident
Analysis and Prevention, vol 29, no 1, pp. 1-9, 1997. They're at the
Injury Prevention Unit of the University of Otago Medical School in
Dunedin, NZ. What data do you have that contradicts theirs?
> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.
I know of several people who _claim_ that their helmets saved their
lives, because their helmets were slightly dented. I also know of
several people who _would_ have dented helmets just as badly if they had
worn them, but they didn't wear them. They are still alive - in fact,
they are in perfect health.
And I know (or knew) several people who were killed or seriously head
injured. However, they were all seriously head injured or killed while
traveling in cars or trucks. Now, interestingly, travel by motor
vehicle is by far the number one source of serious or fatal head injury,
despite seat belts and air bags. Yet people (like you) who push bike
helmets seem perfectly willing to accept risk of head injury, as long as
it happens inside a car! Why the disparity? Why not tell your sincere,
hand-wringing tales to motorists?
> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
People should have enough sense to analyze data on head injuries before
preaching to others. But they don't.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowski
Limey wrote:
> Any time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> they will want to be like you.
>
> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
I've got problems with your thinking. Is riding without a helmet
somehow a BAD example? Does that mean that over 99.99% of the cylcists
down through history (and still today) are riding around giving bad
examples?
Are you really saying that almost all the world's cycling is BAD?
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Pete
The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
> You can add me to that list. I hit a dog and went flying, landing on
> my shoulder and smacking my head on the pavement hard enough to crack
> my Giro, but not my skull. If it takes a law to make people wear a
> helmet, then we should have a law.
>
You wish to make it illegal for me to ride my bike without a helmet if I
choose? Why?
Why not concentrate on helping people avoid the accident?
Pete
terry morse
> Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
> The styrofoam
> of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> work to offset the styrofoam)
Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
<http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
causes minimal temperature increase.
-terry
Frank Krygowski
> The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote
> >
> > You can add me to that list. I hit a dog and went flying, landing on
> > my shoulder and smacking my head on the pavement hard enough to crack
> > my Giro, but not my skull. If it takes a law to make people wear a
> > helmet, then we should have a law.
> >
I have a friend who was fitness walking during her lunch hour. She fell
and was head-injured, had to be taken to the ER, missed about a week on
her job. No helmet, of course. If it takes a law to make people wear a
helmet while fitness walking, then we should have a law!
I know a guy who was riding in his brand new SUV. He was hit from
behind and suffered serious, lasting head injuries. His problem, of
course, was that he trusted his seat belt and air bag, and so he didn't
have a helmet on. If it takes a law to make people wear a helmet while
riding in cars, then we should have a law!
Now - exactly where does this type of thinking stop?
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Tom Kunich
news:GafZ4.27850$usz4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
Here in the USA we call that corruption. No one is guilty of a crime until
they are so judged in a court.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and
cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
I don't know where you got that idea, but certainly the study performed by
Paul Scuffham, a rather well educated New Zealand helmet supporter, showed
that there had been no changes whatsoever in the rates of serious and fatal
injuries in bicyclists when helmet use went from near zero to more than 80%
in some groups.(Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., Trend in Cycling Injuries in
New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use, 1997, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 )
But I'm sure that you have better information and can cite it.
> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.
How many deaths occur each year in New Zealand to bicyclists? How many
before the helmet legislation? How many cyclists are in NZ? What do you
think that chances are of dying in a bicycle accident? What do you think the
chances are of there being three such cases in such a short period of time.
Here's a clue -- you have a very good imagination. That is what helmet
advertising plays to. You aren't any different than most other people.
> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
Could it ever occur to you that perhaps the people have better sense than
the government? No, in your sort of people it probably doesn't.
David Cásseres
morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
Give it up, Terry -- you're dealing with people's religion here, and the
religion says that Helmets Cause Death By Heat Stroke.
--
David Cásseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
David Cásseres
proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
just another stupid hoax?
Avery Burdett
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
Sounds pretty much like the standard born-again message from newbies to
cycling.
At least do some homework. You might avoid making a fool of yourself again.
Start at the Bicycle Helmet FAQ:
It was compiled to address the sort of myths you have so fervently embraced.
>
> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>
> Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
>>Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>>when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>>styrofoam cooler?
>>
>>The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
>>that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
>>adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
>>time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
>>they will want to be like you.
>>
>>Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>>
>>Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"
>>
>>http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
> *
>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>>
>
>
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario
Tom Kunich
news:218d1719...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
> As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
> it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
> helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
> sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
> stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
> cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
> released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
> idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
> hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
> that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
> sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.
This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was resolved
when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
form and actually ran the tests.
A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
At high wind speeds there would be effectively no different between a well
ventilated helmet and a bare head.
Other helmet tests done in a University showed that cyclists wearing helmets
during moderately high exercise rates had higher heart rates and said that
they felt hotter when wearing helmets than without.
The facts are that people aren't as stupid as you and others like to
believe. If they think that their heads are cooler without a helmet they
probably know what the heck they are talking about.
terry morse
> This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was resolved
> when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> form and actually ran the tests.
>
> A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
-terry
Jack Dingler
"David Cásseres" wrote:
Pete
David Cásseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-010...@cassda2.apple.com...
> Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
> proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
> just another stupid hoax?
>
I think this is a resurrection of an old thread.
Pete
Jack Dingler
tub yet. I guess I'm just being irresponsible.
I know I should've done these things because I've slipped and have nearly
fallen in a tub, several times in my life. After my last really serious car
accident, I had such serious neck and back injuries that I nearly drowned in
my bathtub. I was able to use a toe to lift the stopper a little so the
water would drain out. Then I could turn over, knowing I wouldn't drown if I
passed out from the pain. Who knows when I might get a cramp next and
drown!?
I've already suffered two minor concussions from being rear-ended on the
freeways. Still, I'm too dumb to get an automotive helmet. Instead, I just
ride my bike when I can. It's safer.
Jack Dingler
terry morse
> That's an interesting test. I commend you for even doing it.
>
> There's only one very serious difficuly with it. The styrofoam head wasn't
> heated internally. Therefore, you weren't measuring the helmet's ability
> to shed heat. You were only measuring it's ability to absorb heat.
>
> Perhaps a repeat of the test can be done with melon that has an aquarium
> heater inserted?
Maybe one of these days, if I have the time and inclination. The test
did show how air flow affects temperature rise, even if the heating was
external.
> When the entire body is overheated and unable to shed heat fast enough, a
> helmet can make a difference.
I doubt a helmet will make much of a difference at road cycling speeds.
-terry
Jack Dingler
In Texas, individual cities have enacted helmet laws. In Dallas, all cyclists must
wear helmets. In Ft. Worth all cyclists under the age of eighteen must wear
helmets. Both of these laws are universally ignored. WE just don't have the
problem of cyclists dying in droves, like others report. Except for the annual
summer cases of death from heat prostration, most cycling deaths in the area are
from cyclist getting hit at high speed and runover, by motor vehicles. I haven't
heard of a cyclist in the area dying from a fallover accident or by riding into an
immobile object, though it's reasonable to assume it's happened once or twice.
In every single motor vehicle case that I know any of the facts of (local), it was
obvious that a helmet would've made absolutely no difference.
In the last incident I heard of, a motorist with a dirty windshield accidently
drove through two helmeted cyclists at 50 mph (15mph over the speed limit). Their
helmets made no difference. But it did get people talking about how dangerous
cycling is, and the importance of wearing a helmet. Also, a few people preached to
me about the dangers of riding on the street and how stupid those cyclists were. I
replied to one, "Yeah but just think of how much worse it could've been, had that
been a parked police car instead!" They agreed that would've been worse, then
looked at me funny. It's actually common for police officers to be parked there.
It's right outside of a major school zone.
Jack Dingler
Pbwalther wrote:
> Seems to me that a laws on requiring Helmet wearing by cyclists would fall
> under police powers - a state governmenal function. The federal government
> probably does not have the constitutional authority to pass such a law - of
> course that hasn't stopped the federal government from passing all sorts of
> dern fool laws so maybe they would.
>
> Personally, I wear a helmet when I ride and even under very hot conditions, I
> notice no particular heating effect from the helmet.
>
> From Forester's book, "Effective Cycling", we know that competent riding is the
> best defense against injuries and helmet usage would not have a huge impact
> statistically. Forester found that most riders who were injured were only at
> best marginally competent. So the anti-helmet guys have a point - from a
> safety point of view, requiring everyone who rides bikes to pass an effective
> cycling course would have a far greater safety impact than requiring everyone
> to wear helmets.
>
> I did look at the accident rates on the web - forget the site - it is a helmet
> advocacy site. They claimed that cyclists suffered 1/2 the fatality rate of
> motorist per hour of activity and motorcycles were 4 times as dangerous to
> operate as cars - don't know how they figured that.
>
> As far as fatalities went, nearly all were bike/car situations - not to many
> cyclists manage to kill themselves by hitting something else - it can be done
> though.
>
> I looked at the info on fatalities. Men suffered much higher rates than women
> - maybe the testosterone effect - perhaps we should require castration of all
> male cyclists? Now that would have to be popular.
>
> Nearly half of the fatalities occurred at night - how about that - I did not
> think there were that many cyclists out there to be killed at night but I was
> wrong. On the night fatalities, they did not have a break down of what
> percentage were using active lighting systems - I would bet that the vast
> majority were not using any lighting whatsoever - I ride before dawn and I
> notice that virtually none of the other riders uses lights -** shudder **.
>
> I would have predicted a "fatality peak" on Sat and Sun mornings - when most
> recreational cyclists ride. I figure that recreational cyclists account for
> most of the miles ridden so one would think that there would be some effect.
> But I examined Sat and Sun and those fatality rates were no higher than the
> weekly fatality rates. That seems to be confirmation of Forester's findings -
> club cyclists have very low accident rates compared to casual cyclists.
terry morse
> For me typical road cycling speeds follow this pattern...
>
> 1. Accelerate to 25mph to keep up with traffic for 1/4 mile.
> 2. Stop three minutes for traffic light, feel the hot exhaust of cars around
> you.
>
> 3. Watch the pavement appear to deform from heat waves.
> 3. Move forward a few paces, repeat #2.
> 4. Go back to #1.
That sounds pretty horrible.
> What would you call typical road cycling speeds?
I'd call 15-25 mph pretty common. If you have to stop a lot, that
surely will make a difference. There are some routes around here (SF
Bay Area) where you hardly have to stop at all. See the following:
<http://www.ChainReactionbicycles.com/theloop.htm>
There are only a handful of stop lights on this route.
-terry
Jack Dingler
You were wearing a styrofoam bicycle helmet?
Jack Dingler
PRV8EYE wrote:
> >Re: National Helmet Legislation Coming in '00!
>
> In 1985 I was riding a 49cc scooter in Okinawa when I hit gravel and dumped it
> going only about 15 mph.
> My gourd hit the pavement with a thud and two cans of coke I was carrying in my
> jacket pocket ripped open.
> It was dark, I had forgotten about the cans and thought I was bleeding to
> death. I was pleasantly surpised once I reached home<G>.
> In 1993 I was going down a California hill on another scooter (180cc yeah I
> know they're not "real" motorcycles but I liked them for commuting, parking
> anywhere and the way you can ride all week for 50 cents in gas and the cops
> ignore scooters).
> It was raining and I hit some oil. Started sliding on my belly down the hill at
> about 40mph. I had on a heavy coat and, strangley, remember thinking "this
> isn't so bad". Then I tried to put my gloved hand down to stop and immediately
> started flipping, non stop, so fast I can't describe the terror.
> My tightly laced running shoes came off, cloths ripped to shreads, ribs
> started cracking and I couldn't stop until I hit the curb at the bottom of the
> hill. I got up bleeding, broken and my skin full of asphalt. I was angry and
> scared.
> Amazingly, the bike started back up and I drove home, with one hand, because I
> had no insurance and wanted to vamoose before the cops came.
> To make a long story longer, my new white helmet was COMPLETELY battered,
> scratched and scraped on every area.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my fat head that, on EITHER occassion, without
> the helmet, I would have been either dead or vegging away in some hospital at
> taxpayer expense for the rest of my life. Nobody has to show me any chart to
> make me a believer in helmets.
> I know a bicycle is not a motorized scooter but I routinely reach speeds equal
> to that in which I crashed my "Yamaharley", going down the steep, long, hill
> near my home.
> I know this is a stupid thing to do with the little, thin, 16" Primo Comp on
> the front of my BikeE AT and little more on the rear.
> I love to see how high I can get that computer to read and I like the
> expression on driver's faces as I pass<G>. At the age of 44, reaching 42mph on
> a bicycle is a BIG rush)
> But, even more stupid, would be to do so with no helmet, even at 10 mph.
> Been there, crashed that.
>
> Gus Morrow
> Oceanside, CA
Jack Dingler
There's only one very serious difficuly with it. The styrofoam head wasn't
heated internally. Therefore, you weren't measuring the helmet's ability
to shed heat. You were only measuring it's ability to absorb heat.
Perhaps a repeat of the test can be done with melon that has an aquarium
heater inserted?
When the entire body is overheated and unable to shed heat fast enough, a
helmet can make a difference.
terry morse wrote:
> Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
>
> That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
>
> > The styrofoam
> > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > work to offset the styrofoam)
>
> Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
> be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
>
Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
was according to the text. You do know that metals have a lower heat index
than water? If you add a calorie of heat to a gram of aluminum and a
calorie of heat to a gram of water, the aluminum will reach a much higher
temperature.
Anyone who was touched bare metal, exposed to the sun on a hot day,
understands this effect.
>
> <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
>
> The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> causes minimal temperature increase.
>
> -terry
Jack Dingler
Jack Dingler
terry morse wrote:
> Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
> > was according to the text.
>
> No, only the temperature probe was shielded from the lamp with a tiny
> piece of aluminum. Just enough to shade the probe, with plenty of air
> space between the shield and the probe to permit air flow.
>
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.
>
> > You do know that metals have a lower heat index
> > than water? If you add a calorie of heat to a gram of aluminum and a
> > calorie of heat to a gram of water, the aluminum will reach a much higher
> > temperature.
>
> About 4.7 times higher.
>
> > Anyone who was touched bare metal, exposed to the sun on a hot day,
> > understands this effect.
>
> I'm not sure that alone would provide sufficient understanding. The
> "ouch" is more because of the metal's conductivity than its heat
> capacity. Compare walking on a hot wood deck to a hot metal platform.
>
> -terry
The wood has a higher heat index though, so it will not reach as high of a
temperature. It will however retain the heat longer.
Still comparing the materials takes us beyond the scope of cycling. And I agree
that conductivity is an important part of the equation.
I might try improving on your experiment though. It's a good idea, and I like
it. Easy to reproduce too.
I'm also considering that direct temperature readings, while riding might be
provide some good data. I wonder if a thermometer that measures ear
temperature, gives a good indication of brain temperature. I would assume it
would be close.
The temp here at the moment is only 95f. So it will be a little while longer
before our extreme temperatures kick in.
Jack Dingler
Chris Phillipo
Jack Dingler wrote:
> Limey wrote:
>
> > Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> > when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> > styrofoam cooler?
> >
>
> When was the last time you saw a warm blooded watermelon? Whe was the last time
> you saw a watermelon exercising in 100f+ heat? (Morning temps for much of Texas
> in the summer).
I've been told I look like a watermelon, does that count? :)
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Ride our island.
http://www.ramsays-online.com <-- (buy bike stuff here)
http://welcome.to/Cape.Breton
Jack Dingler
tell me I'm stupid for not wearing one at all times. I even get annoyed when
people tell me I should always wear one when riding a bicycle.
There's been some argument on the topic, but I'll still assert that when temps
pass 100f, and the humidity is 65%, riding is safer without a helmet. I know
this after nearly making some face plants from heat exhaustion. I've learned my
lesson. If someone else would like to learn it, they're welcome to come ride in
heavy traffic, on the streets of Dallas with me. We'll head out at 3pm and
return at 6pm. We must do it during the months of July or August. That person
can wear a helmet. I won't, but I get to pick the route and pace.
I do like to wear a helmet in the winter. When the temps get near freezing, a
helmet helps keep my head warm. When temps are below freezing, it keeps my
baclava from blowing off. :) Also, I like it when people comment about the
steam coming out of the vents. :)
The lifesaving effects of helmets, are in my opinion questionable. There have
been studies that seem to 'prove' that helmets would save many lives if they
were universal, yet where they have become universal, this hasn't been proven
out. In the US, only about 800 people a year die while riding bicycles. Even
with increasing helmet use and static sales in bicycles, this number has in fact
remained very stable. Almost all of these past cyclists, were riding in an
unsafe manner. I believe riding the wrong way was number one. With so few
deaths and comparatively so few serious injuries, it's no wonder that studies
can't demonstrate real world projections. Yet the propaganda is everywhere.
My helmet literature (Bell) said that it was designed to be effective against
minor injuries and was not intended as a lifesaving device or to be effective
against cars. I believe this disclaimer to be correct. Wouldn't a reasonable
person? Or do reasonable people believe that a bicycle helmet is excellent
protection against trucks?
In the end Mike. I'll fight for your right to decide. And happy riding.
Mike Cutts wrote:
> Not quite, merely that if an option makes sense, choose it.
> No you are not going to die if you ride without a helmet, likewise people
> have survived parachute failures. The odds are considerably different, but I
> am fairly sure you know what I meant.
>
> Seatbeats (safteybelts)?
> Crash helmets?
> Lifejackets?
> et al.
> Have all been made a legal requirement at some point. The same arguments can
> apply. And yes if you feel safer you will probably play harder. Blah blah
> blah.
>
> I s'pose at the end of the day there are always going to be two (or more)
> sides to this argument.
>
> Which is why I am going to quit now.
Dorre
: > helmet can make a difference.
: I doubt a helmet will make much of a difference at road cycling speeds.
You are joking, surely!
A helmet prevents sweat evaporating from the forehead, as Nature
intended it to do when people get too hot (at least in conditions of
reasonable humidity).
When I don't wear a helmet, the sweat evaporates and I feed cool
and comfortable.
With a helmet, instead of evaporating, it gets absorbed into the
pads and even drips into the eyes. That's a major loss of cooling
from wearing a helmet.
Even the watermelon + aquarium heater test suggeted by Jack isn't
the best experiment. What you need is a spongy headform + heater, all
of which is covered by an absorbant cloth to mimmick the evoporation of
sweat from the skin. The whole thing has to be attached to a reservoir
of water (to simulate the cyclist drinking to replace the sweat and keep
the spongy headform full of water).
Now put a helmet on that headform and severely restrict evaporation
of water, and I'll bet the non helmeted one is cooler.
As Jack says, the main problem is the ability of the head to
loose heat, which is restricted by the helmet. Tests which simply
measure the temperature of a inanimate headform in the sun, with
or without a breeze, aren't a useful model of reality, so we
can't draw any sensible conclusions from them!
Dorre
Tom S
are like cancer in that they go into remission, but unfortunately
keep on coming back (with the same old arguments).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Sherman
1999 Blue RANS TAILWIND/63
2000 Red RANS ROCKET
.O __............O............
_\\__\_........._\\_\-%.......
(_)^ %(_).....(_)^(_)..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a&b
bg
Beth wrote:
> I am
> actually far more afraid of TBI than death -
Pbwalther
terry morse
> Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
> was according to the text.
No, only the temperature probe was shielded from the lamp with a tiny
piece of aluminum. Just enough to shade the probe, with plenty of air
space between the shield and the probe to permit air flow.
> You do know that metals have a lower heat index
a&b
renamed r.b.helmet_hens as Cassares, Kunich, Dingler, et.al
cackle-back-and-forth-forever at the helmet "worm" and now it is cross posted
to the 'bent group. Filters on
bg
"David Cásseres" wrote:
> In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>, terry
> morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
>
> > Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
> >
> > That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> > people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> > head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
> >
> > > The styrofoam
> > > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > > work to offset the styrofoam)
> >
> > Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
> > be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
> >
> > <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
> >
> > The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> > causes minimal temperature increase.
> >
> > -terry
>
Beth
MORJ
padded headboard.
Thanks big brother for saving me from myself. I just don't know any better.
George Orwell, are your listening?
"Jack Dingler" <jdin...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3936B04B...@texas.net...
> Actually I haven't installed a helmet, water wings or a harness in my bath
> tub yet. I guess I'm just being irresponsible.
>
> I know I should've done these things because I've slipped and have nearly
> fallen in a tub, several times in my life. After my last really serious
car
> accident, I had such serious neck and back injuries that I nearly drowned
in
> my bathtub. I was able to use a toe to lift the stopper a little so the
> water would drain out. Then I could turn over, knowing I wouldn't drown
Avery Burdett
such as the Swedish one where Casseres believed the claim by an
ambulance driver posing a medical practioner that universal helmet use in
Sweden would have eliminated every one of 60 or so cycling fatalities in one
year, they are hoping to hook him again.
David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
> proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
> just another stupid hoax?
>
> --
> David Cásseres
> Exclaimer: Hey!
terry morse
I figured it was just a matter of time before someone brought this up.
Well, the test merely was designed to measure the difference between a
black and a white helmet under sunlight, and the test measured that
difference well.
Even without evaporative cooling, the test clearly showed that the
temperature rise of a helmeted head is minimal when air speed is above
5 mph. There is no reason to believe that adding evaporative cooling or
internal heating would change this conclusion. The main component of
convective cooling is air flow, as it is in evaporation. There was
sufficient air flow in the helmeted test to maintain a low temperature
rise. Adding evaporation to the test would not change the situation.
I might run another test with internal heating, but evaporative cooling
would be difficult to administer reliably.
-terry
Joseph
television. How about the example set from just the commercials aired
during prime time television.
There are such serious problems to be addressed in our society that
affect our ability as a species to even survive for another century that
putting time and energy into bicycle helmet legislation is total stupidity.
However, what can we expect from a civilization of human lemmings that
believe: combustion engines are our right and are necessary to survive when
they are killing us, that economy is based on continuous consumption, that
100,000 new chemicals per year is fine and acceptable, that genetic
engineering will have wonderful results, that large corporate interests and
financial motivation are the basis of our legal structure, and financial and
ego based motivation are the basis of our moral structure? Helmet
legislation and the moronic simpleton linear thinking that considers it
valid are tame compared to everything else going on.
In a way I apologize for the emotional ferver of my expression, but to quote
a bumper sticker: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention".
Jim Ek <JIM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:SnDZ4.4292$pk3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I've just started riding a bicycle again after a long hiatus. I had never
> previously worn one on a bicycle and didn't use one when I rode my
> motorcycle prior to being married --- 25 year anniversary this summer so
you
> have an idea of my age.
>
> A question comes to mind. How many accidents have occurred as a result of
> someone wearing a bicycle helmet? I have no idea regarding the stats, but
I
> think the number would be tremendously small, if any. They don't
interfere
> with hearing, they are light in weight.
>
> Now an observation. When people do things for a period of time they just
> become habit. Seatbelts are a great example. I was one of the last in
the
> state of Indiana to wear them. They legislated them, implemented a fine
if
> you aren't wearing one. So I started wearing one. Now periodically I'll
> jump in the car to run a short errand and say I'll pass on the seat belt,
> and feel like I am naked without it. So I buckle up. Does it hurt. Heck
> no. It's just habit now.
>
> What has always concerned - nah, irritated the heck out of me. Is when I
> saw folks taking their kids in a car, and the kids would be standing on
the
> front seat or biting on the dashboard. I could just imagine the an
accident
> and those kids would find themselves on the other side of the windshield
or
> an impression on the kids face on the dashboard. Came across an accident
> once where that was actually the case. Not a pretty sight.
>
> One thing I have noticed over the three weeks that I have owned by 'bent'
is
> the attention it draws. Especially from kids. We as adults make our own
> decisions based on information we collect. Kids typically haven't
developed
> that level of sophistication yet.
>
> If helmets don't cause accidents other then "helmet hair," and after
awhile
> practices become habits and habits become natural. And it might save a
kids
> life to be wearing a helmet sometime in the future. What's the harm in
> wearing a helmet and helping set an example for the coming generations?
> Sure helmets may get warm, but we can stop and cool down. I mean if we
are
> in a scenario where time is critical we would probably be taking a car.
>
> If your not concerned with the future generation. Why not just make the
> decision to wear a helmet based on the question of "is there anything
worth
> protecting in your head?" If there isn't, then you really shouldn't need
a
> helmet. If there is, then maybe wearing a helmet is a valid
consideration.
>
> In the area where I live, Bloomington, Indiana, they have passed
legislation
> requiring kids to wear helmets while riding. Nothing is required of the
> adults. What has happened. You should see all the adults wearing helmets
> around here.
>
> May you always be able to start on the downside of the hill!
>
> Jim Ek
>
>
>
> The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:nskbjs4lah4ag66cr...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:07:27 +1200, "Mike Cutts"
> > <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >know of several people who can thank
> > >helmet wearing for currently being alive
> >
Mike Cutts
No you are not going to die if you ride without a helmet, likewise people
have survived parachute failures. The odds are considerably different, but I
am fairly sure you know what I meant.
Seatbeats (safteybelts)?
Crash helmets?
Lifejackets?
et al.
Have all been made a legal requirement at some point. The same arguments can
apply. And yes if you feel safer you will probably play harder. Blah blah
blah.
I s'pose at the end of the day there are always going to be two (or more)
sides to this argument.
Which is why I am going to quit now.
--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
Jack Dingler wrote in message <39367FF9...@texas.net>...
>Are you suggesting that a person is just as likely to die if they ride
without
>a helmet, as a person is if they skydive without a parachute? I seems
you're
>suggesting that cycling without a helmet is certain death.
>
>Do you really believe that cycling under any conditions, is this dangerous?
>
>Jack Dingler
>
>Mike Cutts wrote:
>
>> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
>> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
>> down today.
>> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
>> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
>> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like
to
>> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no
matter
>> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
>> tomorrow.
>> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
>> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Cutts
>> Technical Admin
>> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>>
>> Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
>> > Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>> >> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>> >> styrofoam cooler?
>> >
>> >Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
>> >heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.
>> >
>> >Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam
>> >of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
>> >the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
>> >wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
>> >cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
>> >work to offset the styrofoam)
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>> >
>> >Yes, how about seting an example riding is fun and safe. Not
>> >something that is dangerous.
>> >
>> >Where I live now there are alot of over
>> >protective parents. The poor kids can only seem to ride if they
>> >have on their helmets, ride on the sidewalk and the parent(s) are
>> >present riding with them. that can't be much fun. The kids sorta
>> >just trod along with the parents.
>> >
>> >Where I grew up I still see kids riding without parents, no
>> >helmets either. They seem to be having fun. The big difference
>> >is the example and rules the parents set.
>> >
>> >Which group do you think is more likely to produce life-long
>> >cyclists? The group guarded by their parents through cycling or
>> >the ones allowed to have fun with it on their own?
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >Before you buy.
>
Brent A. Peterson
terry morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
> Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
That's funny, according to even PBS shows on how humans evolved
better heat transfer through the head is one of the advantages
of walking upright. And this was in very hot regions of africa and
before clothing.
> > The styrofoam
> > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > work to offset the styrofoam)
> Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
> be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
See a heat and mass transfer textbook. The styrofoam
is an insulator, It will not increase heat transfer. If
the helmet were made of metal and had fins on it, then it
would be believable that such a helmet would be cooler.
The only way a helmet could help is if it reflected more
heat from entering than it prevented from escaping. Such
a behavior would be due the thin plastic cosmetic
cover, not the strofoam.
> <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
> The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> causes minimal temperature increase.
A temperature increase. exactly. It's an insulator.
Brent A. Peterson
cass...@apple.com (David Cásseres) wrote:
> In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>, terry
> > <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
Another thing I noticed about this test reading further
is that it was just a strofoam head. So all this test measured
was the ability of the helmet to get rid of the heat it absorbed
from an external source. There was no heat from the 'head' that
needed to be shed to the environment.
> Give it up, Terry -- you're dealing with people's religion here, and the
> religion says that Helmets Cause Death By Heat Stroke.
I mentioned nothing about heat stroke. Only that the styrofoam
cooler anology was faulty.
Should I crack out the heat and mass text and do an analysis?
This is not religon, its simple heat transfer.
Pete
>
> > I liked your response. Thank you.
> >
> > In Texas, individual cities have enacted helmet laws. In Dallas, all
> > cyclists must wear helmets. In Ft. Worth all cyclists under the age of
> > eighteen must wear helmets.
>
> lets local jurisdictions do this.
>
> > Both of these laws are universally ignored.
>
Virginia does the same thing. Allows local jurisdictions to enact their own
sets of rules. One place, its legal for adults to ride on the sidewalk...one
street over, its not.
Same with helmets. Thankfully, nothing about adult lids....yet.
Pete
Rolf Mantel
Mike> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and
Mike> the police enforce it with instant fines. What this has meant
Mike> is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle deaths
Mike> and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
Sadly, the rider numbers have decreased even more, so everybody still
riding a bike after the helmet law has a higher risk of sustaining a
head injury.
Rolf Mantel
Tom Kunich
news:010620001105233139%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com...
> In Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>
> > This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was
resolved
> > when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> > form and actually ran the tests.
> >
> > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
>
> A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?
Your (good) experiment showed a definite difference in heating between bare
head and helmeted head and that difference was there even with a windstream.
Tho pointed out that his head was hotter in a helmet than without one. In a
study that the summary stated showed that helmeted heads cooled equally well
to bare heads (note this Richard) the real information contained within the
complete study showed that helmeted cyclists doing moderate exercise regimes
in controlled conditions stated that their heads were hotter with helmets
than without. The charts also showed that helmeted cyclists had higher heart
rates than un-helmeted cyclists thereby backing up the claim of these
cyclists.
You may also do a simple experiment. When you are cycling and sweat if
pouring off of your head into your eyes, try taking off your helmet and
riding bare headed. Does the sweat stop pouring into your eyes? Why would
that be?
Avery Burdett
Because he had already bought into the myth that bicycle helmets will save
the lives of all who wear them, he set himself up as the perfect dupe in
the hoax from Sweden which said it indeed it would have happened there if
all those cyclists killed had been wearing helmets!
The fraud I said had been pulled on newsgroup readers was indeed confirmed
as a hoax. Not surprising really. Only the completely vaccuous of
cretins would believe a helmet could be 100% effective against all fatal
blows.
So now Casseres tries to weasel out of an admission he was duped by lying
about it. Just as he did with his simpleton physics - helmet good for 20 - 40
mph at 16lbs, must be good at 2 - 4 mph at 160lbs.
David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> In article <8h6i7o$5de$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
>> Probably a hoax, but since they know Casseres is suckered in by hoaxes,
>> such as the Swedish one where Casseres believed the claim by an
>> ambulance driver posing a medical practioner that universal helmet use in
>> Sweden would have eliminated every one of 60 or so cycling fatalities in one
>> year, they are hoping to hook him again.
>>
>>
>> David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
>> > Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
>> > proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
>> > just another stupid hoax?
>
>
> Just to set the record straight, it is not true (Burdette, go look up the
> word "true" before reading further) that I believed that Swedish report.
> I did criticize Burdette for denouncing it as a hoax before we saw
> anything except a 2nd or 3rd-hand account of it.
Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> terry morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote in message
> news:010620001105233139%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com...
> > In Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was
> resolved
> > > when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> > > form and actually ran the tests.
> > >
> > > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
> >
> > A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> > at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
>
> Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
> minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?
I should mention an alternate test that's been done to judge the
temperature effects of helmets. It didn't address color, but it's
instructive anyway.
Consumer Reports tested the ventilation of helmets this way: they took a
moist piece of cloth, with the weight of cloth plus moisture
controlled. They put it on a headform, put the helmet over the cloth,
then blew conditioned air at the helmeted headform. After a fixed
amount of time, they weighed the difference in the wet cloth, and took
this to be a measure of the amount of evaporative cooling.
The idea's interesting, but not perfect, of course. One good point, as
I see it, are that the test takes a step in the direction of duplicating
the same cooling method we actually use - evaporation of sweat. One bad
point is that many of us have hair (apologies to those who have
unwillingly lost theirs!) and our evaporation takes place beneath a
layer of fur, which probably clogs the helmet airflow in a way not
duplicated by CR.
CR did not, of course, do anything analogous to what Terry Morse did,
and that is compare with a bare head. OTOH, I imagine there was not
much need. Nobody would expect that a wet cloth under a helmet would
evaporate water as fast as a wet cloth directly in the airstream.
CR did not test the effect of color, nor of radiant heat gain (AFAIK).
Unfortunately, in true CR fashion, they gave very few details of the
test and no numerical results - just their usual colored circles to
indicate "Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair...". I imagine both
their test and Terry's could be improved by multiple runs (especially
when Terry's differences come down to fractions of a degree).
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
terry morse
> > > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
> >
> > A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> > at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
>
> Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
> minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?
Um, well, I'll have to think about that. The incident heat I used was
about 60-90 watts. Does the human head dissipate much more heat than
that? A human at rest generates about 90 watts, which is dissipated
more or less equally by the skin of the entire body. Heat output goes
up during strenuous exercise, but it's still dissipated by the whole
body. I'd have to guess that my radiant heat source was the same order
of magnitude as the heat from a human head, since the head is a small
percentage of the body surface. My guess for the radiant heat I used:
bigger at rest, smaller under strenous exercise. But the same order of
magnitude, either way.
> You may also do a simple experiment. When you are cycling and sweat if
> pouring off of your head into your eyes, try taking off your helmet and
> riding bare headed. Does the sweat stop pouring into your eyes? Why would
> that be?
When I'm moving at a good speed, sweat doesn't pour onto my face. When
I stop and take off my helmet, my scalp dries up quickly. I'm pretty
sure air flow makes the difference.
Maybe I should do another experiment after all. I'll have to think
about that. I might stumble onto a helmet design idea.
-terry
terry morse
> Consumer Reports tested the ventilation of helmets this way: they took a
> moist piece of cloth, with the weight of cloth plus moisture
> controlled. They put it on a headform, put the helmet over the cloth,
> then blew conditioned air at the helmeted headform. After a fixed
> amount of time, they weighed the difference in the wet cloth, and took
> this to be a measure of the amount of evaporative cooling.
Hmm. Maybe I can use something like that. Stay tuned.
> CR did not, of course, do anything analogous to what Terry Morse did,
> and that is compare with a bare head. OTOH, I imagine there was not
> much need. Nobody would expect that a wet cloth under a helmet would
> evaporate water as fast as a wet cloth directly in the airstream.
No bare head test? Probably because CR didn't want to give the
impression that riding without a helmet is an option.
-terry
David Cásseres
(Avery Burdett) spewed:
> Another example of why Casseres has zero credibility.
>
> Because he had already bought into the myth that bicycle helmets will save
> the lives of all who wear them, he set himself up as the perfect dupe in
> the hoax from Sweden which said it indeed it would have happened there if
> all those cyclists killed had been wearing helmets!
>
> The fraud I said had been pulled on newsgroup readers was indeed confirmed
> as a hoax. Not surprising really. Only the completely vaccuous of
> cretins would believe a helmet could be 100% effective against all fatal
> blows.
>
> So now Casseres tries to weasel out of an admission he was duped by lying
> about it. Just as he did with his simpleton physics - helmet good for 20 - 40
> mph at 16lbs, must be good at 2 - 4 mph at 160lbs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
David Casseres
Tom Kunich
news:00b05f08...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> Let me preface by saying I am not for mandatory helmet laws. No
> one accuse me of being a helmet nazi. I mostly wear one though,
> except when its very warm, or like yesterday when I forgot
> (don't ask).
There are places where you could actually be jailed for that infraction. So
I do hope you realize what it is we are fighting. After all, since that was
yesterday I assume you can understand that you are presently alive and in
good health. And if you are really astute you might understand that you had
approximately no more chance of being injured than driving your car the same
time.
> In every argument I see regarding helmet use the anti's always
> throw statistics up that show that helmets dont' protect against
> fatalities. But they never discuss the statistics of TBI and
> other head injuries.
On the contrary, we discuss it all the time. Perhaps you ought to be a
little more actentive in looking through these discussions. Fatalities are
used as a marker because for every fatality there are about 5 serious
injuries. And fatalities are ALWAYS reported.
That means that for the 800 or so fatalities last year there were about
4,000 seriously injured. About 60% of those seriously injured had serious
head injuries as a part of their overall injuries so let's say there are
2,500 brain injured each year. Only a small percentage of these are
seriously injured mind you. And an even smaller percentage suffered these
injuries to sites that a helmet might be able to moderate. (Remember, now,
that there are between 50 and 100 million bicyclists in the USA which
translates to a statistical probability of about .003% chance per year of a
serious head injury on a bicycle--I make that at about 16,000 years before
your statistical probability achieves about 50% what?)
Most of those who are seriously injured have been found to have been doing
something REALLY stupid on bicycles such as riding at night without lights
and often intoxicated. Or running stop lights on busy streets. Or riding on
the wrong side of the road or on sidewalks where people pulling into
driveways miss them or misjudge their speed. 30% of them are children who
have a far greater chance of head injuries because children are already head
heavy and because they don't know how to fall yet. So a normal experienced
bicyclist stands a very much smaller chance of encountering a serious
accident simply by riding in a normal vehicular and legal manner.
Another part of the puzzle isn't just head injuries, but the results of
those head injuries. Only something like 1% resolve badly. That is to say
that almost all bicycle related head injuries respond to treatment and
theropy. Even the worst case normally return to almost normal lifestyles.
This, unfortunately, can't be said for car and motorcycle victims of such
injuries since they generally occur at higher speeds and with more serious
consequences.
> Either you are dead, or its a "minor injury" and I think
> that there is alot of middle ground in between minor
> and dead.
There is another point here Beth. Most bicycle accidents, perhaps 90% or
even higher, are single vehicle accidents in which the victim falls off of
his own and in these cases serious head injuries are almost unknown. Of the
remaining 5%-10% of the accidents involve collisions with motor vehicles and
even then only about half of them involve head injuries. There is therefore
a double bell curve that overlaps somewhere on the margins. Serious head
injuries for non-vehicle related are very rare and a very short part of the
curve and lesser injuries are only a smaller part of the auto collision
curve. In short, the middle ground that you are worrying about is a rarer
case than you might assume.
Serious head injuries are really rare. In the entire US bicycling related
head injuries account for about 2% of the vehicular related head injuries
and less than 1% of the overall injuries. Bicyclist are not in much danger
of a serious head injury such as seems to motivate you. People talk about
these injuries because the very worst things that you can imagine sometimes
happen to people who are brain injured seriously. Well, injuries are rare in
airline crashes and fatalities are the rule. But that doesn't make airline
travel dangerous -- because any accident is exceedingly rare and scheduled
airline traffic is the safest form of general transport.
Moreover, helmets are not designed to moderate serious head injuries. They
are designed SOLELY to mitigate minor injuries. A simple look at the helmet
standard will reveal that they are stressed for a fall of about 7' (about
the height of your head sitting up on a bicycle) when ONLY YOUR HEAD WEIGHT
IS BEHIND THE HELMET! This is an entirely unlikely scenario in the first
place, but all of that aside a simple calculation reveals that the helmet
standard is requesting that the head not suffer more than 300 gees of
deceleration from a speed of just 14 mph. I have shown in previous
calculations that should you fall in a 'normal head injury' manner of your
head hitting the ground before anything else, that you can only expect a
helmet to protect you in speeds of a couple of miles per hour. Not much
protection wouldn't you say?
Are helmets more protective than they claim? No, the deceleration function
has to do with the thickness of the foam. And all helmets have about 1" of
foam (the newer one's are pushing 1.5" but then again they are using many
more vents and harder foam to achieve the same thing). In fact, the helmet
standards are designed to push the technology as hard as it may be pushed
and so these helmets are very close to their absolute limits when they pass
the standards tests.
> All of the pro-helmet literature and
> statistics I have read says that the helmets are very helpful in
> controlling head injuries. Personally, I would prefer NOT to
> have a head injury - a friend had one (not cycling) last year,
> and the semi-comatose state is not a pretty sight. I am
> actually far more afraid of TBI than death - so if my helmet can
> prevent a brain injury, then I would like to wear it.
Essentially ALL of the "pro-helmet" literature is written by the helmet
industry, their flacks or people who have been biased one way or another
towards the information generated by the helmet industry. Did you ever see
anything bad written about cigarettes written by the tobacco industry?
> And if anyone tells me more people get TBI from driving in cars
> than from riding a bicycle I will puke. No sh*t - more people
> drive cars than ride bicycles.
No, Beth, you have that quite incorrect. Yes more people ride in cars but
even at that the CHANCES of a head injury in a car accident is greater. Two
times as great according to the largest firm specializing in such figures
for the insurance industry. Four times as great for pedestrians. Brain
injury due to hypoxia brought on by partial drowning is 4 times more likely
in swimmers.
Do you really worry about brain injuries while you engage in these things?
If not then worrying about whether or not you're wearing a helmet while
riding a bicycle is probably a little silly. Not REALLY silly, but a little.
Tom Kunich
David Cásseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-020...@cassda2.apple.com...
Frank Krygowski
Beth wrote:
>
> ...Personally, I would prefer NOT to
> have a head injury - a friend had one (not cycling) last year,
> and the semi-comatose state is not a pretty sight. I am
> actually far more afraid of TBI than death - so if my helmet can
> prevent a brain injury, then I would like to wear it.
And what activity was your semi-comatose friend participating in? Are
you afraid of TBI from that activity? Or are you only afraid of the
very rare TBIs that come from cycling? If it's the latter, it's very
odd logic!
>
> And if anyone tells me more people get TBI from driving in cars
> than from riding a bicycle I will puke. No sh*t - more people
> drive cars than ride bicycles.
It appears that the chance of suffering serious or fatal TBI while
driving a car is about the same PER HOUR as riding a bike. Overall risk
of fatality is roughly twice as great in a car, per hour, as on a bike.
In fact, it's taken air bags and seat belts to get car safety down to
within shouting distance of cycling safety.
Don't puke. Don't sh*t. Instead, THINK. If cycling isn't more
dangerous than riding in a car, why all the concern about protective
head gear on bikes?
It seems you need to do some reading on relative risk. I recommend
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm as a good place to
start.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
David Cásseres
<tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
[ Lots of serious, worthwhile information.... And then, geez, you can set
your watch by this guy: ]
> Moreover, helmets are not designed to moderate serious head injuries. They
> are designed SOLELY to mitigate minor injuries. A simple look at the helmet
> standard...
The standard, let's notice, is a requirement for a test that helmets must
pass in order to be certified. IT IS NOT A DESIGN PHILOSOPHY.
> ...will reveal that they are stressed for a fall of about 7' (about
> the height of your head sitting up on a bicycle) when ONLY YOUR HEAD WEIGHT
> IS BEHIND THE HELMET! This is an entirely unlikely scenario in the first
> place,
What is it that you think is so unlikely about it?
It describes all the bike crashes I've ever seen that involved a head
impact, in life or on film, adults or kids. The rider loses control for
one reason or another, and falls over sideways. The body hits the ground
with head and torso more or less horizontal, and there is no other weight
"behind" the head.
In an over-the-bars crash you'd be more likely to have some mass behind
the head, but personally I've never seen one. And the amount of extra
mass would be highly variable, so in some cases it would still be very
little.
> but all of that aside a simple calculation reveals that the helmet
> standard is requesting that the head not suffer more than 300 gees of
> deceleration from a speed of just 14 mph. I have shown in previous
> calculations that should you fall in a 'normal head injury' manner of your
> head hitting the ground before anything else, that you can only expect a
> helmet to protect you in speeds of a couple of miles per hour. Not much
> protection wouldn't you say?
I think you ought to show us those calculations once again so we can all
admire them the way we did before.
> Are helmets more protective than they claim? No, the deceleration function
> has to do with the thickness of the foam. And all helmets have about 1" of
> foam (the newer one's are pushing 1.5" but then again they are using many
> more vents and harder foam to achieve the same thing). In fact, the helmet
> standards are designed to push the technology as hard as it may be pushed
> and so these helmets are very close to their absolute limits when they pass
> the standards tests.
I've seen no facts to support this. It would require seeing the results
of testing helmets to destruction and knowing what the numbers were and
how far they were from the test standard.
Do you have any data on that?
terry morse
> "terry morse" <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
> ...
> > A human at rest generates about 90 watts, which is dissipated
> > more or less equally by the skin of the entire body...
> > -terry
>
> I wonder about that assumption, given the differences in skin perfusion and
> insulation by body fat. At different core temperatures the body varies
> dissipation of heat from various sites.
That's why I wrote "more or less". A big temperature difference would
be required to dissipate a large percentage of heat from a small
portion of the body. I just don't think the skin temperature varies
that much over the body under normal (not hypothermia) conditions.
-terry
Bill Zaumen
<tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> Mike Cutts <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:GafZ4.27850$usz4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> > enforce it with instant fines.
>
> Here in the USA we call that corruption. No one is guilty of a crime until
> they are so judged in a court.
Last I heard, you aren't required to appear in court in the U.S. to pay
a traffic fine, and I'm sure you can contest a ticket in New Zealand as
you can here.
BTW, "instant fines" are apparently common in parts of Europe---you pay
the officer but he has to give you a receipt so he can't just pocket it
himself. It basically saves you the cost of a stamp and makes it harder
for people to disappear and not pay because they've crossed a border (before
the EU was established). It may not be what we do, but that doesn't mean
it is an example of "corruption".
>
> I don't know where you got that idea, but certainly the study performed by
> Paul Scuffham, a rather well educated New Zealand helmet supporter, showed
> that there had been no changes whatsoever in the rates of serious and fatal
> injuries in bicyclists when helmet use went from near zero to more than 80%
> in some groups.(Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., Trend in Cycling Injuries in
> New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use, 1997, Accident Analysis and
> Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 )
New Zealand's population is so small and the number of fatalities so small
that failure to detect anything is hardly surprising. See the archives
for details---this has been discussed time and time again.
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Bill Zaumen
(Avery Burdett) wrote:
> "Mike Cutts" (mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz) writes:
> > Here in New Zealand,....
> At least do some homework. You might avoid making a fool of yourself again.
> Start at the Bicycle Helmet FAQ:
>
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc
>
> It was compiled to address the sort of myths you have so fervently embraced.
It was 'compiled' by Burdett himself and is hardly an unbiased source of
information.
Robert Smith
...
> A human at rest generates about 90 watts, which is dissipated
> more or less equally by the skin of the entire body...
> -terry
I wonder about that assumption, given the differences in skin perfusion and
insulation by body fat. At different core temperatures the body varies
dissipation of heat from various sites.
RS
Avery Burdett
Messages from the archives:
Author: Avery Burdett
Email: ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Date: 1997/11/01
Forums: rec.bicycles.misc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Jones (vasat...@ebox.tninet.se) writes:
> .....
> Here is some data from Sweden.
>
> I would like to see the source of it, and it did come in a consumer TV
> program which aired last Monday. I must point out that they were basicly
> saying that every cyclist should always wear helmets.
>
> However, I did get a feeling that this medical expert knew what he was
> saying:
>
>There were 67 bicycle deaths in Sweden in 1996. They had studied each of
>the deaths in great detail and arrived at an amazing conclusion:
>EVERYONE of those cyclist would "stood an excellant chance of survival"
>had they been wearing a helmet.
I thought the worst distortions about head injuries and helmet use come
out of Seattle (from the people who want to put cyclists in neoprene
suits), but this is the first to claim that the cause of every
cycling fatality was solely a head injury (at least in 1996).
Just add the doctor to the list of physician liars who postulate on this
issue.
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario
Re: Helmet Use (why you should wear them)
Author: David Casseres
Email: cass...@apple.com
Date: 1997/11/01
Forums: rec.bicycles.misc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <63fql3$53g$1...@news.ysu.edu>, ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank
Krygowski) wrote:
> In a previous article, vasat...@ebox.tninet.se (Garry Jones) says:
> >There were 67 bicycle deaths in Sweden in 1996. They had studied each of
> >the deaths in great detail and arrived at an amazing conclusion:
> >EVERYONE of those cyclist would "stood an excellant chance of survival"
> >had they been wearing a helmet.
>
>
> Did they go into any detail at all about how they determined that?
> I wonder if it's published in a journal, so we could read it and see.
>
> The reason I wonder, is it is in direct opposition to other data points
> we've found. For example, it's been mentioned that in New South Wales,
> when 80% of the cylists were helmeted, 80% of the fatalities were also
> helmeted. That is, the helmets did NOT give those who were fatally
> injured "an excellent chance of survival".
This is a perfect example of the fallacy I described in another post. In
the Australian study we know nothing about individuals, and nothing about
individual accidents. All we know is that the benefits of helmets for
abstract, fictitious, "average" cyclists were not great enough to show up
in the data.
But in the Swedish data, 67 accidents were examined in detail, and as far
as we know the conclusion that helmets might have prevented all 67 deaths
may well be correct. At least, it is not in conflict with the Australian
data in any way.
On the face of it, both studies are valid: the Australian one addresses a
whole population and considers very few variables; the Swedish one
addresses only the fatal accidents in one year in a small population, and
considers a great many variables. From the one you can conclude that
helmet laws are not worthwhile overall, and from the other you can
conclude that when a potentially fatal accident does occur (a rare
thing!), a helmet may prevent the fatality.
From: Garry Jones <vasat...@ebox.tninet.se>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: An apoligy
Date: Tue Mar 17 19:36:29 1998
________________________________
Some of you may remember the fun and games we had last year shortly
after I "joined" this newsgroup.
I had referenced a TV show in Sweden that had claimed that the 67 people
who died in cycling accidents in Sweden in 1996 would have ALL stood an
excellent chance of survival had they been wearing helmets.
The regulars who have studied this at length, Tom and Frank, etc, wanted
more information. I tried to get to the source, even posted the email
address of the TV channel here for others to try.
My apoligy is because I have today finally got to the source of the
information. The "expert" invited on to the show was an ambulance
driver. He had no data to back up his claim. He has another job when he
is not out driving his ambulance. Can you guess what he does? - Surprise
surprise, he works for a company that supply bicycle helmets. So - I am
sorry, to those that doubted the information when it was first posted by
myself; - I take my hat (errh! Helmet) off to you.
The helmet study links you sent me to showed valid surveys, and I have
now stopped wearing a helmet when I commute in the winter on icy cycle
paths. For years I have battled with the problems of keeping my head
warm when I commute in the winter. I have a short commute on fairly safe
roads and paths.
I am not as convinced about helmets as I used to be, despite the fact
that I sincerely believe one saved my life in the summer of 96. However
- I will continue to wear a helmet when I train and take part in events.
I plan to wear it on my commute when it gets a bit wamer as I do pick up
a bit of speed then.
As well as my apoligy I want to thank you for opening my eyes on this,
before I joined this newsgroup I did not know that there was a single
person in the world who would dare to doubt that cycling helmets worked.
In the begining I thought the ones that said it were stupid. I mean
"helmets" just "have" to work, it is obvious ! - Or it was, now I am
unsure. I feel safer on busy roads - it feels like cars give me more
space and time because I look the part if I have a helmet on.
Garry Jones
Sweden
Then in a later message Casseres wrote this:
(I wrote:)
.......
> >>(Sweden, where even an ambulance driver is taken seriously when he states
> >>that the total of one year's cycling fatalities (67 of them) would have been
> >>reduced to zero if all the cyclists had been wearing helmets! Should I
> >>mention quietly that our perennial helmet-defending chumps on this NG
> >>took it seriously too?)
>
> He's referring to me, folks. I did not, in fact, take it seriously.
***********************************
Pathetic.
David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> In article <8h8lv6$gu7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Avery Burdett) spewed:
>
>> Another example of why Casseres has zero credibility.
>>
>> Because he had already bought into the myth that bicycle helmets will save
>> the lives of all who wear them, he set himself up as the perfect dupe in
>> the hoax from Sweden which said it indeed it would have happened there if
>> all those cyclists killed had been wearing helmets!
>>
>> The fraud I said had been pulled on newsgroup readers was indeed confirmed
>> as a hoax. Not surprising really. Only the completely vaccuous of
>> cretins would believe a helmet could be 100% effective against all fatal
>> blows.
>>
>> So now Casseres tries to weasel out of an admission he was duped by lying
>> about it. Just as he did with his simpleton physics - helmet good for 20 - 40
>> mph at 16lbs, must be good at 2 - 4 mph at 160lbs.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> David Casseres
LeRoy
I think you make a good point about TBI. I've read most of this
thread. I find all of the arguments using statistics and
testing of helmets & head temperatures to be interesting. Sort
of. But I think you're about the only one to base helmet
wearing on experience, even if it was someone else's.
I used to ride a motorcycle. Wore a helmet religiously. For
the last several years I've been riding bicycles, and I still
wear a helmet religiously. I recently took a short ride of
several blocks without a helmet. Felt terribly vulnerable.
I wear a helmet because I used to work on an ambulance crew as
an EMT. I've worked on people involved in bicycle accidents and
motorcycle accidents (lots of car crashes, too, but that's
another story). I've seen first hand the benefits of wearing a
helmet for both types of transportation. And one of the
benefits of being high on the food chain is that I don't have to
be injured to know it hurts, I can watch someone else crash and
learn from their pain.
Another thing I've learned from experience is that I can't
control everything in my riding environment. I like to think
I'm a capable rider. But what about that patch of sand on the
road than can cause me to lose control and crash? Or worse,
what about some of the careless, inattentive, and sometime
stupid car drivers out there on the roads! There's no way I can
control all of them. No, I'm not going to give up riding
because of those "possibilities." But I do wear a helmet
because it's inexpensive, simple to use, and like you, I think I
fear TBI even worse than death.
The argument about wearing helmets while driving cars is almost
humorous. The difference between cars and bikes/motorcycles is
obvious. In a car, you have the body of the car surrounding
you, and you have a seat belt. On a bike or motorcycly, you
have considerably less metal surrounding you for protection.
I think the original question had something to do with a FEDERAL
law requiring mandatory helment usage on bicycles. As someone
said previously, the federal government has no business sticking
its nose in this area. While I'm a firm believer in wearing a
helmet, I am adamantly opposed to the government (at any level)
mandating helmet usage. And I really get irritated with those
who whine, "if it will save just one life, wouldn't a mandatory
helmet law be worth it?" My answer to that is - NO - it
wouldn't. Giving up personal freedom(s)to save one life is a
slap in the face to every soldier who ever died protecting our
form of government and the freedom we value so highly in our
society. Security is a lie - a political deception. There is
no guaranteed safety in life.
By the way, does anyone remember the early 70's? These things
seem to go in cycles (no pun intended). I distinctly remember
there was a movement in the early 70's to have a federal law
banning bicycles! Obviously, it didn't get very far, but the
people behind the movement were serious. I forget the finer
details, but basically some governmental health care agency
(Center for Disease Control, maybe?) had funded a statistical
study on bicycle accidents, and the statistics were astronomical!
Many of us riding bikes back then were getting quite concerned
about loosing our right to ride. The darn movement was starting
to gain momentum, until a couple of cyclists stated scrutinizing
the "research."
They found that the statistical information was terribly
misleading (surprise, surprise!). Whoever had done the study
had put together a questionaire that lumped together ALL
accidents involving bicycles. For example, if you walked out on
your back porch after dark, tripped over your kid's bike leaning
against the porch railing (because he forgot to put it away)and
broke your toe, that was a "bicycle accident." These
questionaires were used in several major hospital emergency
rooms across the country.
Once the faulty research was exposed, the movement sort of
slipped into the shadows and died a quiet death.
Does anybody else remember this? Just goes to show there are
always people willing to force their will on others, usually in
the name of "safety" or "security."
Avery Burdett
have the expertise to deal with the substantive issues covered on the web
site.
Frank Krygowki
>
>
> I used to ride a motorcycle. Wore a helmet religiously. For
> the last several years I've been riding bicycles, and I still
> wear a helmet religiously. I recently took a short ride of
> several blocks without a helmet. Felt terribly vulnerable.
It's interesting, isn't it. People have been riding bicycles in America
(and elsewhere) since the 1860s, at least. But in the last 10 years or
so, there's been enough publicity about helmets that many people now
feel "terribly vulnerable" if they ride without the latest
safety/fashion accessory!
> I wear a helmet because I used to work on an ambulance crew as
> an EMT. I've worked on people involved in bicycle accidents and
> motorcycle accidents (lots of car crashes, too, but that's
> another story).
A very common attitude, and hard to defend rationally. See below.
> The argument about wearing helmets while driving cars is almost
> humorous. The difference between cars and bikes/motorcycles is
> obvious. In a car, you have the body of the car surrounding
> you, and you have a seat belt. On a bike or motorcycly, you
> have considerably less metal surrounding you for protection.
...and here's the rest of that common attitude. "You've got a seat
belt, and you're protected by the body of the car." As an EMT worker,
can you really not have noticed that the "protection" often doesn't
work?? Tell us, please, how many injured people you removed from cars!
Or have you lost count - as is likely?
You speak of learning from others' accidents. I've had three friends
killed riding in motor vehicles over the years. Within the last three
years, two people I've known have had head injuries in cars - and both
were belted in, one in a brand new SUV whose airbag worked as designed.
His head injury was quite serious, causing months of missed work.
Now of course, the people I know constitute a small sample. It's much
smarter to examine national data on head injuries, if you want to find
out how safe the inside of a car is, or how dangerous a bike is. But
then you find that riding in cars is by FAR the number one cause of
serious head injuries, and bicycles aren't even on the usual lists.
Usually, at this spot, someone says "But people ride in cars more than
they bicycle!" The obvious next step is to look at the per-hour
figures. Per hour, riding a bike seems to be roughly twice as safe as
riding in a car, and four times as safe as swimming.
If you (for some reason) don't want to count most of the gruesome,
bone-crushing ways people die inside cars, and want to look only at
deaths from nice clean head injury inside cars, the only per-hour
figures I've been able to find claim head injury deaths per hour are the
same for bikes and cars. Again, you're more likely to drown while
swimming!
LeRoy, do you feel "terribly vulnerable" when you jump into a swimming
pool without water wings? If not, don't worry so much about your
bicycle. And please, don't go telling everybody _else_ that bicycling
is so dangerous. It's not!
I recommend reading http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Brian Lafferty
For the latest information on peer reviewed medical journal articles on
the effectiveness of bicycle helmets see
http://homestead.deja.com/user.rjk3/helmetabstracts.html
Brian Lafferty
Avery Burdett wrote in message <8hatfh$3bi$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
LeRoy
I think you missed my point. I choose to wear a helmet on both
motorcycle and bicycle. It has little to do with publicity,
absolutely nothing to do with fashion (my helmet is ten years
old, and probably looks "dorky" to most roadies) and mostly to
do with experience. I'm not trying to convince people that
bicycles are dangerous. As you have well stated, riding
bicycles is a safer activity than many other things one can do
(such as swimming). It's just that helmets are relatively
inexpensive, and for the money spent, I think it's a good deal.
I wish more people would ride bikes. Their health would
improve, as would the quality of our air.
I was in no way implying that cars are more safe than bikes. I
just find the comparison a little strange. Apples to oranges,
really. From a motorcycle/bicycle perspective, if I'm riding
down the road on two wheels doing 35 mph, and a car pulls a left
hand turn in front of me (classic car versus two wheeled vehicle
scenario)and I impact the side of that car with my two-wheeled
vehicle, which rider/driver is going to sustain the more severe
injuries? Most likely the two-wheeled rider. Just another
reason I wear a helmet on bike - I can't control the actions of
every other driver on the road. Maybe one day, I'll start
wearing a helmet while driving a car. But I'd really prefer it
be my choice, not the government's!
I'm afraid I don't follow your line of thought about the fairly
common attitude that's hard to defend rationally. I wasn't
talking attitude, I was refering to real life experience.
Immediately coming to mind is a bicyclist that was run off the
road by car. He was banged up, we took him to the hospital, he
recovered quite well. On the way to the hospital he told us
repeatedly how glad he was that he had his helmet on. He took a
pretty good blow to the head, but the helmet kept him from
sustaining any head injury. Another the the motorcyclist that
crashed (I keep thinking a car was partially responsible in that
one also)and slid on his face for quite some distance on the
pavement. Plastic surgery was in order for the front of his
face, especially around the mouth/chin. The rest of his head was
fine. Had he been wearing a full face helmet, he wouldn't have
sustained any injury to his head/face.
And, yes, you're right - I have lost count of the number of
people that I've pulled our of cars. And I've seen enough, and
handled enough to convince me to wear my seat belt religously.
And no, seat belts and air bags don't always prevent injury or
death. But my seat belt is there, came with the car, so I use
the darn thing. And there are exceptions to every rule. I know
of at least two car crashes where the seat belt actually
contributed to the driver's death. But those cases are
EXTREMELY rare, and as far as I'm concerned, do not in any way
justify not using a seat belt.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet (at
least I don't recall seeing it if it has been) is the fact that
our moderm medical professionals can darn near repair anything
on the human body. They can replace hip, elbow and wrist
joints, do skin grafts, and the list goes on. One thing they
cannot do yet is repair the human brain! That's why I may or
may not wear gloves when riding, but I choose to wear a helmet.
When I first started using bicycles as serious transportation
(aerobic workouts, commuting to work, running errands around
town) as opposed to just recreational riding, I didn't wear a
helmet. On my way to work one day I was moving rapidly on a
bike path and rounded a slight bend in the path that parralled a
6' high wooden fence. I almost had a head-on collision with
another cyclist coming the opposite way. Admittedly, we were
both probably going to fast for that section of bike path (we
obviously both like speed) and neither of us were wearing
helmets. That was a close call. There is no doubt in my mind
that both of us would have ended up with head injuries had we
collided, due to no helmets and also our respective riding
positions (both of us on uprights). I ordered a helmet that
same day.
So in an effort to clarify - I don't think bicycles are any more
dangerous than other activities, and probably less so than
most. I actively recruit people to try 'bents. I wear a helmet
by choice, based on personal experience, and think everyone
should be free to choose whether they wear one or not. I am
adamantly opposed to any goverment mandate requiring the wearing
of helmets, even though I personally think helmet usage is a
good idea. My feeling of vulnerablity without a helmet is in
part due to my desire for speed when on two wheels.
Hope I've clarified things a little.
Happy riding.
LeRoy
I just took a quick look at Ken Kifer's site on bicycle safety.
Excellent information! Thanks for mentioning his site. I plan
to go back when I can spend more time and study his info in
detail. I was particularly interested in his comparison of the
bike safety literature, and how the emphasis has changed from
safe riding techniques to "always wear a helmet." He makes a
good point (lots of them actually). I still like my helmet, and
still think they're a good deal for the money. And you're right
(as is Kifer), we need to do more educating on safe riding
habits.
Pieter Litchfield
seems to be a 3 prong approach to safety stressed in these events (aimed at
grades 3-5)
1. Be sure the bike is mechanically safe and fits.
2. Be sure the helmet fits
3. Learn the rules of the road (miniature road system with signs & lights)
If I had only 2 minutes to "get to a kid" with a safety message the first
two points I would make would be:
1. Ride with the flow of traffic
2. Always wear a helmet.
LeRoy <mikimroy...@vcn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:01c99740...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com...
Jack Dingler
in a car is higher. This is of course, assuming the motorist is wearing
seatbelts and the car is equipped with airbags. The biggest danger in an auto
comes from side impact collisions and the risk per hour in an auto is
approximately double that in cycling.
This risk of TBI however, is reasonable to most people. But the lower risk of
TBI on a bicycle is not. I believe this comes from the fact that people believe
cycling is dangerous, so the possibility of a death or TBI from cycling is
considered worse than suffering them in a car.
I've also read that bicycle helmets are conjectured to be excellent protection
against TBIs. So far, though, no study has shown that they are. If you read
the summaries or studied themselves, you'll see that the effect is theorized.
After over 100 years of cycling, increasing helmet use has done nothing to
reduce the risk of TBIs or fatailites, though they have definitely been
demonstrated to reduce minor injuries.
Jack Dingler
Beth wrote:
> Let me preface by saying I am not for mandatory helmet laws. No
> one accuse me of being a helmet nazi. I mostly wear one though,
> except when its very warm, or like yesterday when I forgot
> (don't ask).
>
> In every argument I see regarding helmet use the anti's always
> throw statistics up that show that helmets dont' protect against
> fatalities. But they never discuss the statistics of TBI and
> other head injuries. Either you are dead, or its a "minor
> injury" and I think that there is alot of middle ground in
> between minor and dead. All of the pro-helmet literature and
> statistics I have read says that the helmets are very helpful in
> controlling head injuries. Personally, I would prefer NOT to
> have a head injury - a friend had one (not cycling) last year,
> and the semi-comatose state is not a pretty sight. I am
> actually far more afraid of TBI than death - so if my helmet can
> prevent a brain injury, then I would like to wear it.
>
Jack Dingler
a&b wrote:
> What is TBI? Closed head injury?
> bg
Bill Zaumen
(Avery Burdett) wrote:
> Of course, the newsgroup buffoon Zaumen would say that because he doesn't
> have the expertise to deal with the substantive issues covered on the web
> site.
Burdett, instead of calling several others names and otherwise acting like
a bull in a china shop, why don't you just commit an unnatural act with
yourself: doing that would at least require you to remove your head from
its nominal resting place.
Jack Dingler
people get TBIs when walking or motoring, therefore, we should always wear
helmets when cycling.
This means, that if a person in engaging in a socially acceptable activity,
then they should get brain damaged and we should all be happy and proud of
their drooling countenance. But if a person a get's brain damaged when
riding a bicycle than it's bad, bad.
Crushed heads when motoring - Wonderful good thing, everybody get one.
Crushed heads when cycling - Stupid ignorant move, what the heck is wrong
with you?
Jack Dingler
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> >
> > ...Personally, I would prefer NOT to
> > have a head injury - a friend had one (not cycling) last year,
> > and the semi-comatose state is not a pretty sight. I am
> > actually far more afraid of TBI than death - so if my helmet can
> > prevent a brain injury, then I would like to wear it.
>
> And what activity was your semi-comatose friend participating in? Are
> you afraid of TBI from that activity? Or are you only afraid of the
> very rare TBIs that come from cycling? If it's the latter, it's very
> odd logic!
>
> >
> > And if anyone tells me more people get TBI from driving in cars
> > than from riding a bicycle I will puke. No sh*t - more people
> > drive cars than ride bicycles.
>
Jack Dingler
motorists. Or are you saying that because motorist get head injuries that
cyclists should wear helmets? Or are you saying that cycling head injuries are
bad and motoring head injuries are good?
Have you ever seen a TBI'd cyclist that was not hit by a car?
Have you ever seen a helmet TBI'd cyclist that was hit by a car?
Would you argue that a person brain damaged in an auto accident could not have
possibly had done anything at all to lessen their injuries? Or are motoring
head injuries inflicted by God? If a person get's a TBI in an auto, while
wearing seatbelts, where they stupid for not wearing a helmet? I would say so.
Would you also push for automotive helmets?
Just asking.
Jack Dingler
LeRoy wrote:
> Beth,
>
> I think you make a good point about TBI. I've read most of this
> thread. I find all of the arguments using statistics and
> testing of helmets & head temperatures to be interesting. Sort
> of. But I think you're about the only one to base helmet
> wearing on experience, even if it was someone else's.
>
> I used to ride a motorcycle. Wore a helmet religiously. For
> the last several years I've been riding bicycles, and I still
> wear a helmet religiously. I recently took a short ride of
> several blocks without a helmet. Felt terribly vulnerable.
>
> I wear a helmet because I used to work on an ambulance crew as
> an EMT. I've worked on people involved in bicycle accidents and
> motorcycle accidents (lots of car crashes, too, but that's
> another story). I've seen first hand the benefits of wearing a
> helmet for both types of transportation. And one of the
> benefits of being high on the food chain is that I don't have to
> be injured to know it hurts, I can watch someone else crash and
> learn from their pain.
>
> Another thing I've learned from experience is that I can't
> control everything in my riding environment. I like to think
> I'm a capable rider. But what about that patch of sand on the
> road than can cause me to lose control and crash? Or worse,
> what about some of the careless, inattentive, and sometime
> stupid car drivers out there on the roads! There's no way I can
> control all of them. No, I'm not going to give up riding
> because of those "possibilities." But I do wear a helmet
> because it's inexpensive, simple to use, and like you, I think I
> fear TBI even worse than death.
>
> The argument about wearing helmets while driving cars is almost
> humorous. The difference between cars and bikes/motorcycles is
> obvious. In a car, you have the body of the car surrounding
> you, and you have a seat belt. On a bike or motorcycly, you
> have considerably less metal surrounding you for protection.
>
Jack Dingler
automotive accidents, serious injuries are very rare. Therefore crashing cars
rarely represent a danger to the occupants. Is this true? Is a head injury so
rare in an auto that I'm being fool for worrying over my safety when driving?
Also, when will we actually see a benefit to bicycle helmets in our hospital
injury and fatality stats? Helmet use has been increasing over the last two
decades. Bicycle sales have been flat. Head injuries and fatalities have risen
slightly in relation to the number of bicycles. If bicycle helmets work against
serious head injuries, then why is the risk of serious head injury now slightly
higher?
Jack Dingler
Jack Dingler
the roads are clogged with traffic. If I'm to cycle to and from the office, I
don't have any other option, but to interact with traffic.
Driving to work is horrible. Cycling to work is better.
Jack Dingler
terry morse wrote:
> Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > For me typical road cycling speeds follow this pattern...
> >
> > 1. Accelerate to 25mph to keep up with traffic for 1/4 mile.
> > 2. Stop three minutes for traffic light, feel the hot exhaust of cars around
> > you.
> >
> > 3. Watch the pavement appear to deform from heat waves.
> > 3. Move forward a few paces, repeat #2.
> > 4. Go back to #1.
>
> That sounds pretty horrible.
>
> > What would you call typical road cycling speeds?
>
> I'd call 15-25 mph pretty common. If you have to stop a lot, that
> surely will make a difference. There are some routes around here (SF
> Bay Area) where you hardly have to stop at all. See the following:
>
> <http://www.ChainReactionbicycles.com/theloop.htm>
>
> There are only a handful of stop lights on this route.
>
> -terry
Jack Dingler
"David Cásseres" wrote:
> Yes, I read the experiment. Did you read my comment?
>
> In article <3936A9AF...@texas.net>, jdin...@texas.net wrote:
>
> > Did you read the experiment David?
> >
> > "David Cásseres" wrote:
> >
> > > In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>, terry
> > > morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
> > > >
> > > > That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> > > > people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> > > > head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
> > > >
> > > > > The styrofoam
> > > > > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > > > > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > > > > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > > > > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > > > > work to offset the styrofoam)
> > > >
> > > > Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
> > > > be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
> > > >
> > > > The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> > > > causes minimal temperature increase.
> > > >
> > > > -terry
> > >
> > > Give it up, Terry -- you're dealing with people's religion here, and the
> > > religion says that Helmets Cause Death By Heat Stroke.
Jack Dingler
I thought the ear test might be reasonable while riding under different conditions
and while stopped at lights.
I'm not sure I'd want to try the rectal method in traffic. :)
Jack Dingler
terry morse wrote:
> Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm also considering that direct temperature readings, while riding might be
> > provide some good data. I wonder if a thermometer that measures ear
> > temperature, gives a good indication of brain temperature. I would assume it
> > would be close.
>
> And I'd hope it would stay pretty close to 98.6 F. It doesn't take much
> of a body temperature rise to make you feel pretty awful. Most of the
> cyclist tests I've read measure core temperature (rectally). Not my
> idea of a good time.
>
> -terry
Jack Dingler
Texas might some day be as great as California, but probably not until Houston
can surpass LA's smog level.
Houston is trying though.
Jack Dingler
Pete wrote:
> David Cásseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote in message
> news:casseres-010...@cassda2.apple.com...
> > In article <3936D654...@texas.net>, jdin...@texas.net wrote:
> >
> > > I liked your response. Thank you.
> > >
> > > In Texas, individual cities have enacted helmet laws. In Dallas, all
> > > cyclists must wear helmets. In Ft. Worth all cyclists under the age of
> > > eighteen must wear helmets.
> >
> > The problem seems to be that the State of Texas is so goddamn dumb that it
> > lets local jurisdictions do this.
> >
> > > Both of these laws are universally ignored.
> >
> > In other words, it's not Texans that are dumb, just the State of Texas.
>
> Virginia does the same thing. Allows local jurisdictions to enact their own
> sets of rules. One place, its legal for adults to ride on the sidewalk...one
> street over, its not.
>
> Same with helmets. Thankfully, nothing about adult lids....yet.
>
> Pete
Entropy
discussion about helmets.
Bartow
LeRoy <mikimroy...@vcn.com.invalid> wrote in article
<07134498...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>...
Frank Krygowki
>
> Frank,
>
> I think you missed my point. I choose to wear a helmet on both
> motorcycle and bicycle. It has little to do with publicity,
> absolutely nothing to do with fashion (my helmet is ten years
> old, and probably looks "dorky" to most roadies) and mostly to
> do with experience.
I think you're underestimating some influences, honestly.
Toward the bottom of your post, you said:
> On my way to work one day I was moving rapidly on a
> bike path and rounded a slight bend in the path that parralled a
> 6' high wooden fence. I almost had a head-on collision with
> another cyclist coming the opposite way. ... That was a close call. There is no doubt in my mind
> that both of us would have ended up with head injuries had we
> collided, due to no helmets and also our respective riding
> positions (both of us on uprights). I ordered a helmet that
> same day.
Now, was you decision based on "experience" but not on publicity, and
not on fashion? I believe that if you had not been frequently told
about head injuries to cyclists, you would not have thought "both of us
would have ended up with head injuries". I've ridden enthusiastically
as an adult since before the promotion of bike helmets, and I can assure
you that fear of head injuries on bikes is a relatively new phenomenon.
Before 1975 or so, people were mildly afraid of falling off bikes. They
were frequently afraid of being hit by cars, although actually being hit
was quite rare then, as now. But essentially _nobody_ thought of bikes
as a source of serious head injury. If you'd had your "close call" back
then, you'd have thought "both of us would have fallen. We might have
gotten hurt, and our bikes might have been damaged."
Now, it seems head injury and cycling are wedded in the public mind.
Now every simple fall off a bike is a near-fatality, it seems. Every
time a styrofoam helmet gets a scratch, it's a major head injury
averted.
And even if your hat is ten years old, fashion really does play a part
in your decision, I believe. If you were German, you wouldn't consider
wearing a helmet. Very few people do over there. It's just not done.
That is, it's not the fashion.
> I'm not trying to convince people that
> bicycles are dangerous. As you have well stated, riding
> bicycles is a safer activity than many other things one can do
> (such as swimming). It's just that helmets are relatively
> inexpensive, and for the money spent, I think it's a good deal.
But why isn't it an equally good deal for other activities that cause
the same number of serious head injuries per hour, and _far_ more head
injuries overall?
> I wish more people would ride bikes. Their health would
> improve, as would the quality of our air.
I absolutely agree with you there - and I'll go further. I believe our
communities would improve, with more interaction between neighbors, more
safety for our children, less noise, more public involvement, even
prettier neighborhoods.
But I think the constant harping on the dangers of cycling (and on the
"necessity" of protective gear) dissuades people. Can you think of any
activity that's so dangerous as to require protective headgear, but
which nonetheless has high public participation? I can't. Most people
don't want to do dangerous things.
The sad part is, ordinary cycling ISN'T so dangerous as to require
protective headgear! But well-meaning safety apostles tell everybody it
is.
>
> I was in no way implying that cars are more safe than bikes. I
> just find the comparison a little strange.
And I find it strange that someone thinks one activity that causes 0.19
head injury fatalities per million hours should not be compared with
another activity that causes 0.17 head injury fatalities per million
hours! What could be a closer comparison? How does someone justify
helmets for one, but not for the other? (Figures from "Head Injuries
and Bicycle Helmet Laws", D.L.Robinson, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol 28, No 4 pp 463-475, 1996).
> From a motorcycle/bicycle perspective, if I'm riding
> down the road on two wheels doing 35 mph, and a car pulls a left
> hand turn in front of me (classic car versus two wheeled vehicle
> scenario)and I impact the side of that car with my two-wheeled
> vehicle, which rider/driver is going to sustain the more severe
> injuries?
Please note, motorcycles really are a different matter entirely. The
same source I quoted puts the head injury fatality rate for motorcycles
at 2.9 per million hours - sixteen times higher. (I should point out,
though, that there are indications that motorcycle helmets don't help it
very much.)
> And, yes, you're right - I have lost count of the number of
> people that I've pulled our of cars. And I've seen enough, and
> handled enough to convince me to wear my seat belt religously.
> And no, seat belts and air bags don't always prevent injury or
> death.
And despite that, we cheerfully jump into our cars. We understand that
we could be T-boned at any intersection by a red-light-runner. We
understand that our head would be seriously injured by the driver's side
window, door frame, or roof pillar. We understand that we might well be
killed by that head injury. But we don't strap on a helmet. We judge
the risk is acceptably low - and indeed, it is _very_ low.
It's as low as the risk that we'll be seriously head injured on a bike.
If we ride without a helmet.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowki
>
> I have helped out with a few bike "rodeos" locally (upsate NY), and there
> seems to be a 3 prong approach to safety stressed in these events (aimed at
> grades 3-5)
>
> 1. Be sure the bike is mechanically safe and fits.
> 2. Be sure the helmet fits
> 3. Learn the rules of the road (miniature road system with signs & lights)
>
> If I had only 2 minutes to "get to a kid" with a safety message the first
> two points I would make would be:
>
> 1. Ride with the flow of traffic
> 2. Always wear a helmet.
The first is good. But regarding the second, you'd do much more good if
you taught kids to never enter a roadway without stopping to see it's
clear. "Ridouts" are actually the largest source of fatalities for
kids. Teaching kids to obey stop signs and red lights would also be
more productive than number 2. Teaching kids to ride only if their
brakes (and other bike mechanicals) were safe would also be more
productive. Teaching kids to pay attention to road surface problems
(slippery stuff, slots in the road that deflect tires, etc) would be
more valuable too. Teaching them that reflectors are not sufficient for
night riding, that headlights are absolutely necessary, would also be
better.
Almost every kid's fatality or serious injury could be prevented by
getting the kids to ride correctly on a safe bike. Almost none can be
prevented by a helmet rated for only 14 mph. The emphasis should go
toward the things that can really make a difference. Helmets just
haven't done that.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Bill Zaumen
<mikimroy...@vcn.com.invalid> wrote:
> I just took a quick look at Ken Kifer's site on bicycle safety.
> Excellent information! Thanks for mentioning his site. I plan
> to go back when I can spend more time and study his info in
> detail. I was particularly interested in his comparison of the
> bike safety literature, and how the emphasis has changed from
> safe riding techniques to "always wear a helmet."
There is a new set of web pages on riding in traffic on the SVBC
web site. See http://www.svbcbikes.org for the main site, and click
the link on the left column named 'Road Rules'. You can also go
directly to <http://www.svbcbikes.org/bked>. The pages present the
topic from several points of view, both for cyclists and drivers.
The cyclist pages have a 'novice' and 'expert' treatment that differ
mostly in level of detail. The sections use cross links so you can
re-read the same material, varying the level of detail or the point
of view.
There is a short section on helmets at the end. It does *not* say
"always wear a helmet" but rather lets the reader make his/her own
decision. It does say that a helmet can eliminate some injuries and
reduce others, but also states that injuries can occur even at low
speeds. It also points out that safe practices can make a big difference
in the speed of an impact in unavoidable accidents, and that this will
tend to keep the impact within (or at least closer to) the design
limits of a helmet.
I'm responsible for most of the writeup (several others reviewed it
before we put it up on a web site, which helped improve the presentation).
Most of it is about how to avoid accidents in the first place, and it both
describes and explains desirable behavior on the part of motorists and
cyclists.
Jack Dingler
Jack Dingler
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> In article <8h68q1$ig2$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
> > "Mike Cutts" (mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz) writes:
> > > Here in New Zealand,....
>
> > At least do some homework. You might avoid making a fool of yourself again.
> > Start at the Bicycle Helmet FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc
> >
> > It was compiled to address the sort of myths you have so fervently embraced.
>
> It was 'compiled' by Burdett himself and is hardly an unbiased source of
> information.
>
LeRoy
Trust me, Frank, my choice to wear a helmet has nothing to do
with fashion. As I said, it has been influenced a little by
publicity, but not much. My decision is still based mostly on
experience. I have not been "frequently told of head injuries"
as you state. Yes, I've seen a few references to those types of
injuries, but not "frequently told."
Regarding my experience on the bike path. You think that had it
happened 25 years ago, we would have thought we might have
fallen, but we wouldn't have been concerned about head injury.
I disagree. You weren't on the bike path with me that day, you
have no idea how fast we were going, our proximity to the fence,
our respective riding positions, the proximity of other hard
objects, etc. I'm tellin ya, we came very close to serious
injury!
I'm not concerned about what's "wedded in the public mind."
Yes, I'm sure there are people who over-react to a scratch on a
helmet. And then there are those accidents I am personaly aware
of, where the person's helmet was obviously a factor in how well
they survived the accident. I'm not interested in statistics of
the number of bike accidents versus number of car accidents.
I've seen helmets on sale from Nashbar for as little as $12.95,
I like my head just the way it is, so I choose to wear a helmet,
but I don't want the government telling me I have to.
Now you and a few others on this thread are taking me to task
for my personal choice, as if that somehow makes me a danger to
others. At no point in my remarks have I indicated a desire to
impose my choices on others. Your criticism is unwarranted. If
anything, you and a few others appear to be trying to talk
people out of wearing helmets. If that is in fact your intent,
then I question the wisdom of such an effort.
I think there is still some value in the old advise, "an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I just don't want
government mandating my "ounce of prevention."
I don't "harp" on the dangers of cycling, nor do I try to
convince people cycling is dangerous. I have first hand
observations of bike accidents, motorcycle accidents, and auto
accidents. They happen. Let's get something straight - biking
IS dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous. Swimming is
dangerous. Eating is dangerous (do you know how many people
choke to death every year?). Let's face it - LIFE IS
DANGEROUS! Everybody dies from it sooner or later.
And that's part of my point. Life is a risk. So let's accept
the risk, and be responsible for ourselves. I don't like the
government tying to protect me from myself. Botttom line is - I
don't really see what all your argument is about. This thread
started out based on someone's concern that there may be an
effort this year to try and get federal legislation passed that
would make the wearing of bicycling helmets mandatory. I am
opposed to that. Judging from your posts, you are too. I
choose to wear a helmet, but don't want the feds telling me I
have to. You don't wear a helmet, and don't want the feds
telling you that you have to. So we do have something in
common. I'm not trying to convince you that your decision not
to wear one is wrong. So please don't try to convince me that
my decision to wear one is wrong. Our efforts would be better
spent gearing up to oppose the aforementioned legislation if it
does come up before congress. Agreed?
LeRoy
Wanna bet? Haven't been hangin around this discussion board
very long have ya? Give us a chance, we can discuss anything in
very great, lengthy detail. (This group could probably solve
all of the world's problems, too. But most of society wouldn't
take us seriously because we ride funny lookin bikes.)
Marty Wallace
"LeRoy" <mikimroy...@vcn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0eddbb80...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com...
Frank Krygowki
>
> I'm not interested in statistics of
> the number of bike accidents versus number of car accidents.
> I've seen helmets on sale from Nashbar for as little as $12.95,
> I like my head just the way it is, so I choose to wear a helmet,
> but I don't want the government telling me I have to.
Well, I understand that you don't want a head injury from cycling. I'm
having trouble understanding why you're willing to accept the _same_
risk of head injury from motoring, without using a helmet to "keep your
head the way it is." But I guess we'll just have to ignore that point.
>
> Now you and a few others on this thread are taking me to task
> for my personal choice, as if that somehow makes me a danger to
> others. At no point in my remarks have I indicated a desire to
> impose my choices on others. Your criticism is unwarranted.
Actually, I don't mean to attack you for your personal choice. I firmly
believe that each person should be allowed to make their own decisions
on this issue.
What first prompted my response was your story about being an EMT, the
"If only you'd seen what I've seen" sort of thing. Those types of
stories really do seem like attempts to paint cycling as overly
dangerous - especially when someone says, in essence, "yes, I've lost
count of worse injuries to motorists, but that doesn't matter, it's
_bicycling_ that is dangerous enough to need special headgear." I know
you may have only been trying to justify your personal decision, but I
believe others hear the "Bicycling is dangerous" message.
As I said, I believe cycling should be promoted, for many, many
reasons. I know from my reading that cycling is actually much safer
than many other common activities, and when someone overstates its
dangers, it bothers me.
> If anything, you and a few others appear to be trying to talk
> people out of wearing helmets. If that is in fact your intent,
> then I question the wisdom of such an effort.
> I think there is still some value in the old advise, "an ounce
> of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
This is a bit tricky, and some may have trouble understanding, but: I've
never tried to talk anyone out of wearing a helmet. However when
someone preaches on the dangers of cycling as a way of justifying their
choice, I'll give the evidence I have that cycling is NOT excessively
dangerous, and is NOT a special source of head injuries.
> I don't "harp" on the dangers of cycling, nor do I try to
> convince people cycling is dangerous. I have first hand
> observations of bike accidents, motorcycle accidents, and auto
> accidents. They happen. Let's get something straight - biking
> IS dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous. Swimming is
> dangerous. Eating is dangerous (do you know how many people
> choke to death every year?). Let's face it - LIFE IS
> DANGEROUS! Everybody dies from it sooner or later.
Certainly true. And the sooner people start harping on the dangers of
swimming, motoring, and motorcycling, and leave bicycling alone, the
better I'll like it!
I must say, I'm beginning to take heart. Five years ago, Safe Kids Inc.
seemed to spend their entire budget trying to convince people that any
child riding a bike without a helmet was going to end up in the
hospital. Now they've moved on to spending most of their budget on car
safety seat issues. Likewise, my local paper had an article about
keeping kids safe this summer. For the first time in years, the article
did not warn of the terrible dangers of bicycling. It actually
concentrated on pedestrian issues, swimming, playground equipment, and
left bicycling alone! However, an article that takes that approach is
still relatively rare.
> And that's part of my point. Life is a risk. So let's accept
> the risk, and be responsible for ourselves.
And I agree with that as well. Now, I _don't_ like it when someone says
"You're not being responsible. You're not wearing a helmet." Because I
believe helmets actually have very little to do with bicycle safety.
(And I can say that having watched one helmeted rider run three red
lights and ride wrong way down a one-way street today!)
As it's currently done, bicycling is quite safe - safer than many other
common activities. If it were done correctly (say, if we taught kids
how to cycle correctly in phys ed classes) it would be even safer. And
helmets have little or nothing to do with its safety.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Bill Zaumen
> No information is unbiased. All information comes from some source.
>
> Jack Dingler
Avery Burdett is not an unbiased source of information about helemts.
That should be obvious from the messages he posts on this newsgroup.
LeRoy
The reason I wear a helmet on my bike but not in my car is this:
I live in a small town, and commute to work on my bike every
chance I get. It's not unusual for me to hit 25 mph plus on my
way to work. If I'm riding to work on the bike and get struck
by a car, or if I'm driving to work in my car and get struck by
another car at 25 to 30mph speeds, on which mode of
transportation will I sustain the more serious injuries? I
think I'm more likely (in this type scenario anyway) to be more
severly injured on the bike than in the car. I've also become a
little more cautious lately due to the amount of sand used on
our streets during the winter months. Our city road crews are
just now sweeping up the last of that stuff. I haven't lost
control yet due to sand under the front wheel, but I've come
close a few times. Life threatening? No. But I still like my
helmet - just in case.
My reference to formerly being an EMT wasn't meant to convey
that I've had more experience than others. Rather it was that
experience that shaped MY thoughts on helmet useage. Prior to
working on an ambulance crew, head injuries were something that
always happend to "the other guy." After treating some crash
victims, I came to realize they were engaging in the same
activities I did, and that it could happen to me.
Please understand that someone involved in that line of work or
similar line is going to get a rather unbalanced view. By that
I mean, EMT's, E.R. nurses and doctors are going to think
vehicle crashes are happening everywhere, all the time, because
that's what they deal with when they're called into action. I
haven't been an EMT for 17 years now, and really haven't given a
tremendous amount of thought to head injuries during that time
(until this discussion came up), simply because I'm no longer
exposed to them with any degree of frequency. So, I hope you
can see how those experiences tend to color my thinking.
There's also another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet, that
influences my helmet wearing decision, and why I preach to my
kids to wear helmets. For 15 years I worked for an employer
that provided health care benefits that were terrible. I was
basically paying $2,500 a year out of my paycheck for a major
medical policy. If I, or a member of my family got injured, it
meant a huge financial sacrifice right out of my wallet, and
savings account. Just another reason for my decision to use
helmets.
I can agree with you, partially, that helmets have little to do
with bike safety. I think they have some value as protective
measures for kids. Not because "bicycling is dangerous," but
rather because 1) kids are inexperienced, 2) they aren't offered
proper bike training in many instances, 3) there are some car
driver's out there that aren't paying attention. But you're
right - putting a helmet on when riding a bike and thinking
your "safe" is rather like buying a guitar and thinking you're
automatically a "musician." There's more to the equation.
You're also probably correct that bicycling is safer than many
other activities, especially from a statistical standpoint. But
accidents and injuries do occur, and I don't want to fall into
the trap of thinking it will always happen to "the other guy."
Now, do you and I have enough common ground to give this a rest,
and turn our energies toward trashing politicians? It's much
more fun.
Happy cycling,
LeRoy
Entropy
one.)
Bartow
LeRoy <mikimroy...@vcn.com.invalid> wrote in article
<1171e9b4...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>...
> Entropy,
>
> Wanna bet? Haven't been hangin around this discussion board
> very long have ya? Give us a chance, we can discuss anything in
> very great, lengthy detail. (This group could probably solve
> all of the world's problems, too. But most of society wouldn't
> take us seriously because we ride funny lookin bikes.)
>
Christopher Loffredo
seeing groups of young children cycling around. I took a closer look, and they
were groups of about 10 kids, about 6 years old, being led by a policeperson on
a bike who was teaching them traffic and riding rules. I passed about 6 such
groups on my rather short commute, so it was evidently "teach kids to ride
safely" day organized through the schools!
It seems like an excellent example to follow, and will really make cycling
safer, though in some places you might not find policemen able or willing to
ride a bike!
: )
--
Christopher Loffredo