Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?
Jay
The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
horns, such as these:
http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
don't even care!)
J.
Curt Wiederhoeft
Go right ahead. The gene pool is probably better-off without you.
Jay
"Curt Wiederhoeft" <curt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9cf04250-75a6-4b64...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Or do you think, a quick reply equates to a smart reply?
Please try again...and, I suggest...PAUSE before pressing SEND.
TIA - J.
lemmiw...@gmail.com
People have been killed falling over from a standstill
http://www.australiansonline.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/30/2106050.htm?section=justin
so your speed argument doesn't hold water. Having said that, personal
safety should (for the most part) be down to individual choice. Don't
judge people for wearing a helmet or not no matter what speed they
ride.
urbanwriter
"Jay" <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Real world report on the safety and efficacy of helmets?
Well, my helmet, now in tattered bits hangin on the wall bears the
smears incurred sliding down the asphalt. The styrofoam liner, following
the lead of the hard-shell outer, is bust in three or four (depending on
how you count them) separate pieces.
My left eyebrow covers the 12 or 13 stitches. The shorter, exposed,
6-stitch bit is accompanied by the scar tissue generated by the friction
between road surface and my exposed body parts.
All this while 'just riding along.' Then previously undiagnosed medical
conditions decided to reveal themselves, resulting in a total, and
(almost) catastrophic loss of control.
And, just last night, I had to pick my bike from my LBS after service.
Without my helmet I feel worse than naked, I feel exposed.
Go ahead, ride without a helmet, but I'll savour the fact that in my
experience the helmet did exactly what it is intended to do; absorbing
energy otherwise absorbed by my flesh and bone.
And I never buy 'fashion accessory' helmets.
And then there are the motorcycle helmets...
Michael Press
<9cf04250-75a6-4b64...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Curt Wiederhoeft <curt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Go right ahead. The gene pool is probably better-off without you.
We need a more active approach to eradicating the
"free-thinkers" who simply will not conform to good
sense. A lasting solution. They are not dying fast
enough. Waiting for them to be picked off one by one in
traffic is not working.
--
Michael Press
Jay
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-1C40C3....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>
> We need a more active approach to eradicating the
> "free-thinkers" who simply will not conform to good
> sense. A lasting solution. They are not dying fast
> enough. Waiting for them to be picked off one by one in
> traffic is not working.
>
> --
> Michael Press
>
will NEVER get pulled over by a Chicago cop. I look both ways, several
times. I never endanger anyone. But I obviously know, if I am in a wreck, it
will be my fault. That is why I am 2x cautious, when I am breaking a traffic
law.
It seems, most Chicago bike riders ride just like I do. Especially when one
gets close to downtown. And not just bike messengers.
J.
landotter
That's par for the course for Chicago riders--I even knew cops that
rode, and the basic rules were: stay alive, but get there fast and
legally enough. So that means wrong way riding is a no no, but rolling
a light when you can get away with it is acceptable. I certainly don't
ride like that in Nashville.
Helmets are nice for girls that don't like scars. They're great
laceration preventers, for sure. I prefer looking like a pugilist.
Pat
>
> Helmets are nice for girls that don't like scars. They're great
> laceration preventers, for sure. I prefer looking like a pugilist.
For some reason, Stephan Robidas's face came to my mind just now. Maybe you
look like him--no structure to his nose at all.
http://dallasstarscare.com/Default.aspx?tabid=808&EntryID=183
>
Bill Sornson
Patrick Lamb
Well, since a helmet is required to reduce the acceleration in an
impact of 15 mph to below the injury threshold, one might reasonably
conclude low speed riders are the only one who might benefit from
wearing a helmet.
I wear one for SWMBO, and because I'm required to wear one to ride a
bike near work.
Pat
Email address works as is.
landotter
good number of fine facial scars on the forehead, lip, and chin.
Helmet would probably have prevented half of them--but life's too
short. When Scott from the LBS and I stopped by the skate park on the
way home the other night--I pointed out to him--if I was doing
backflips in a swimming pool with a metal edge, I'd wear a helmet,
knee protectors, wrist guards, cup, and tailbone protector. It's all
about risk and statistics in the end. My personal tipping point is
riding single track. If I got another mtb, I'd get a lid, as the
chance of falling are far greater, and the types of crashes different
from what you get in the city.
Ozark Bicycle
> ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................................................................................................
"Quick, Henry, the Flit!"
Dan O
I was riding home from work one day, on a combination sidewalk / bike
lane (adjacent to a school). There was this car was coming out of the
school parking lot, stopped at the sidewalk / bike lane. He wanted to
turn right onto the road, looked up the road to his left, and saw no
traffic coming that way. I heard him drop the clutch just as I was
passing in front from the other direction. Fortunately my pedal was
at top of stroke when the car's bumper hit the crank on that side. As
the bike folded under the car, I went over the bars into the road
(must have scared the living daylights out of that poor guy in the
car).
My hard shell helmet picked up some tasty scuffs and gouges that day.
Of course, I was just a stupid, lucky punk at the time. I should have
made eye contact before riding out in front of him like that, so maybe
helmets are only good for saving people from themselves, but there it
is.
frkr...@gmail.com
>
> I was riding home from work one day, on a combination sidewalk / bike
> lane (adjacent to a school).
I think I'd count that as a serious mistake. No, come to think of it,
at least two mistakes. The first was the mistake made by whoever
built or designated the "combination sidewalk / bike lane," an
atrocious design. The second was your riding it.
In general, sidewalks are several times more dangerous than the road.
Sidewalks that are designated as bike lanes may be worse, because
they'd give cyclists the impression that all is fine. Just because
someone designed it, doesn't mean you have to ride it.
> There was this car was coming out of the
> school parking lot, stopped at the sidewalk / bike lane. He wanted to
> turn right onto the road, looked up the road to his left, and saw no
> traffic coming that way. I heard him drop the clutch just as I was
> passing in front from the other direction. Fortunately my pedal was
> at top of stroke when the car's bumper hit the crank on that side. As
> the bike folded under the car, I went over the bars into the road
> (must have scared the living daylights out of that poor guy in the
> car).
>
> My hard shell helmet picked up some tasty scuffs and gouges that day.
Yep. There are lots of "my helmet was damaged" stories. But never
enough drop in head injuries per rider to budge the hospital data.
Seems more people hit their helmets than ever hit their heads.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman
but population studies show no benefit in reducing serious brain
injuries and/or deaths.
I know my bicycle foam hat saved me from a minor scalp wound when I was
hit on the head by a minivan hatch (failing lift struts were to blame).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Dan O
> On Feb 20, 11:08 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was riding home from work one day, on a combination sidewalk / bike
> > lane (adjacent to a school).
>
> I think I'd count that as a serious mistake. No, come to think of it,
> at least two mistakes. The first was the mistake made by whoever
> built or designated the "combination sidewalk / bike lane," an
> atrocious design. The second was your riding it.
>
That combo bike lane / sidewalk in question is no longer arranged as
such, but it served us kids well in the '70's. Thanks for your advice
re; I should'a' been out in the road, but I was just a kid, and had
grown up understanding that I should better use the bike path when one
was provided. I would have been fine had I only made eye contact
before riding out in front of the car.
> In general, sidewalks are several times more dangerous than the road.
> Sidewalks that are designated as bike lanes may be worse, because
> they'd give cyclists the impression that all is fine. Just because
> someone designed it, doesn't mean you have to ride it.
>
I already acknowledged that my poor youthful judgment was faulty - but
only in that I *knew* on some level the driver didn't see me coming,
yet barreled ahead anyway. *You* don't know the logistics of that
particular scene, but thanks for your expert analysis, anyway.
> > There was this car was coming out of the
> > school parking lot, stopped at the sidewalk / bike lane. He wanted to
> > turn right onto the road, looked up the road to his left, and saw no
> > traffic coming that way. I heard him drop the clutch just as I was
> > passing in front from the other direction. Fortunately my pedal was
> > at top of stroke when the car's bumper hit the crank on that side. As
> > the bike folded under the car, I went over the bars into the road
> > (must have scared the living daylights out of that poor guy in the
> > car).
>
> > My hard shell helmet picked up some tasty scuffs and gouges that day.
>
> Yep. There are lots of "my helmet was damaged" stories. But never
> enough drop in head injuries per rider to budge the hospital data.
>
> Seems more people hit their helmets than ever hit their heads.
>
I also hit my head on a gravel lot one day coming home from school
(this in the days before kids got helmets with their bikes). It was
my first concussion. It was the day after the Evel Kneivel movie
aired on TV, and the incident involved a four-foot concrete retaining
wall and a long board that happened to be laying around...
Michael Press
<cbcc7a10-4b09-4023...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also hit my head on a gravel lot one day coming home from school
> (this in the days before kids got helmets with their bikes). It was
> my first concussion. It was the day after the Evel Kneivel movie
> aired on TV, and the incident involved a four-foot concrete retaining
> wall and a long board that happened to be laying around...
What is the point of this anecdote?
Wear a helmet because you never know when you might
do something mortally stupid?
--
Michael Press
Bill Sornson
> In article
> <cbcc7a10-4b09-4023...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I also hit my head on a gravel lot one day coming home from school
>> (this in the days before kids got helmets with their bikes). It was
>> my first concussion. It was the day after the Evel Kneivel movie
>> aired on TV, and the incident involved a four-foot concrete retaining
>> wall and a long board that happened to be laying around...
> What is the point of this anecdote?
You deleted the context and then ask the point. Classic.
andre...@aol.com
Actually, I am a truly ugly dude and I need an excuse to cover my
ugliness. Fortunately, in cycling where a helmet is mandatory most of
the time, I can cover part of my ugliness. As soon as I get off the
bike, I go scuba diving. Then I go play football and then I go
motorbiking, after that, car racing and finally ice hokey. By the time
I go home its already dark, so I quickly turn off the light and go to
sleep.
andre...@aol.com
wrote:
dude, you pretty much ride a car with pedals, sort of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSwig1tgUtY
So you don't need a helmet. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is
with your milk cow sig?
Harry Brogan
Well, I was hit by a car and I must say that, even though I had a
helmet on, there was NO impact in that area. Helmet provided no
protection. My wrist and back were injured slightly.
As for running stop lights. Here, ((Lincoln, Nebraska)) If you do it
right in front of a cop in a car or one on a bicycle you will probably
get pulled over. I have been stopped for riding on the sidewalk in
the downtown area, which you are NOT supposed to do. Seems that they
are more worried about you running into someone thatn they are about
you getting hit when you run a red light. Maybe they think it will
help out the gene pool!!!!
Dan...@gmail.com
When people talk about only being useful if you tip over, and 15mph
impact thresholds, what helmet are they talking about? This:
http://tinyurl.com/2vh3mg? Maybe this: http://tinyurl.com/2oggr6?
Surely not his: http://tinyurl.com/2vk9wt?
Pat
>> I also hit my head on a gravel lot one day coming home from school
>> (this in the days before kids got helmets with their bikes). It was
>> my first concussion. It was the day after the Evel Kneivel movie
>> aired on TV, and the incident involved a four-foot concrete retaining
>> wall and a long board that happened to be laying around...
>
> What is the point of this anecdote?
>
> Wear a helmet because you never know when you might
> do something mortally stupid?
>
> --
> Michael Press
His "anecdotes" are real world experiences. The point? Accidents happen.
That's why they're called accidents and people need to be prepared....
landotter
I bet you think that utility belt looks really sexy!
Marz
No, not completely useless. It may not save your life or protect you
from brain damage in an auto accident, but it may save the top of your
head from cuts and bruises. Plus I'd have thought a skater style lid
in Chicago would help keep your head warm.
_
It may also cause damage that a non-helmeted rider would escape.
There are better ways to keep warm.
frkr...@gmail.com
>
> Well, I was hit by a car and I must say that, even though I had a
> helmet on, there was NO impact in that area. Helmet provided no
> protection.
And for contrast: I've posted several times about the incident I saw
in Pittsburgh, where a pedestrian was hit hard by a car. His head
destroyed the windshield, his body flew higher than the roof of the
car, then he landed on his head in the road. But his only injury was
a slight scratch or cut above his right ear.
Of course, he had no helmet on. And of course, nobody thought he
should have. But if he'd had one, everyone would have claimed it
"saved his life!!!!"
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
>
>
> His "anecdotes" are real world experiences. The point? Accidents happen.
> That's why they're called accidents and people need to be prepared....
Fatal head injuries happen most often inside cars, despite seat belts
and air bags. They happen next most often to people walking around
their homes. They happen to pedestrians far more than they happen to
bicyclists. And that's not just because there are more pedestrians;
the per-hour rates I've seen were worse for pedestrians than for
bicyclists. Bicyclists are less than 1% of America's head injury
fatalities.
So if you're going to "be prepared" for that sort of "accident," you'd
better leave that helmet on all the time.
Or did you mean, ignore all the other times, and only "be prepared"
when you're on a relatively safe bicycle?
- Frank Krygowski
A Muzi
> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
> horns, such as these:
> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
> Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
> injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
> close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
> simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
> shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
> don't even care!)
It's religious.
No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
A Muzi
-snip snip snip-
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
ndre...@aol.com wrote:
-more snip-
> So you don't need a helmet. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is
> with your milk cow sig?
If you like Holsteins (and who doesn't?), Wisconsin's where they hang out:
http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m1/2029201962
further reading:
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/dairysch.html
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
My eldest daugther (16 or 17 at the time) lost a pedal on her bike
coming down a steep curve in the road and lost control of the bike.
She ended up against a concrete retaining wall with a mild headache
and a sore neck, with a split helmet.
Is there ANY doubt in my mind, or hers, that the helmet saved her from
serious injury? NOT A BIT!!!! And she was not going terribly fast
either (she was/is a rather timid rider).
That said, I still ride more often without than with.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
frkr...@gmail.com
>
>...
> Is there ANY doubt in my mind, or hers, that the helmet saved her from
> serious injury? NOT A BIT!!!!
And there are lots of folks without ANY doubt - NOT A BIT!!!! - that
they were cured by their prayers, or by their witch doctor, or by
rubbing their skin with a potato that they then buried in the back
yard during a full moon...
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
>
>
> It's religious.
> No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
> And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
Sorry, Andrew, but I disagree on two points.
First, there are many of us here whose views have been changed by
rational argument - or in my case, by investigation of actual data to
which people pointed me, which is the same thing. I was once pro-
helmet. I no longer am, because of that data.
Second, I do think America's intense helmet promotion is harmful, even
absent compulsion. The promotion is almost always done by stating or
implying that bicycling is really, really dangerous. That
exaggeration of the danger is a lie, but it still scares people away
from bikes, and works against cyclists who get hurt by negligent
drivers. It prejudices police, judges and juries.
I think it's important to show that ordinary cycling is an acceptably
safe and beneficial activity. Helmeteers, in general, disagree. They
claim you're not safe unless you're wearing a funny hat, despite the
fact that the hats haven't been shown to make a detectable difference.
- Frank Krygowski
clareatsnyder.on.ca
You, my friend, did not see the helmet. I did.
As for your attack on faith and religion, it is also totally
un-called-for. Even many agnostic doctors have noted that there
APPEARS to be a co-relation, in many cases, between faith/prayer and
recovery. Don't discount it out of hand.
clareatsnyder.on.ca
I'm no helmet fanatic, but for those under 18 here it IS the law.
How serious mu daughter's injuries would have been without the helmet
is open tonconjecture - but it WOULD have been more serious than it
was with . At the very least, without the helmet she would have
scraped her head and left some hair behind (it was a rough concrete
"rock" or "block" type construction - like a bunch of little sandbags
filled with concrete and stacked as a retaining wall)
When it comes to MOTORCYCLES, I say anyone who rides without a "brain
bucket" doesn't have anything worth saving up there anyways.
landotter
> As for your attack on faith and religion, it is also totally
> un-called-for. Even many agnostic doctors have noted that there
> APPEARS to be a co-relation, in many cases, between faith/prayer and
> recovery.
Living in the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt--I constantly hear lies
like this trotted out as a fact. And as always, I have to ask: is
lying a sacrament for your particular sect? Hah ha hahaha!
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Is there ANY doubt in my mind, or hers, that the helmet saved her
>> from serious injury? NOT A BIT!
> And there are lots of folks without ANY doubt - NOT A BIT!!!! - that
> they were cured by their prayers, or by their witch doctor, or by
> rubbing their skin with a potato that they then buried in the back
> yard during a full moon...
Sadly the UCI rule about helmet use for professional racers is not
based on statistics of head injuries, but rather the demand by helmet
manufacturers and those religiously attached to the belief that there
were such incidents and that bicycle helmets would have prevented
these non-occurring injuries.
Jobst Brandt
Dan...@gmail.com
That's interesting. *I* say people who use absolute and broadly
sweeping phrases such as "I say anyone who does a certain thing in a
way that doesn't fall into my immediate line of thinking doesn't have
any brains" doesn't have much going on upstairs. This includes "a
helmet is always good" and "a helmet is always bad".
I believe that much like bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets are a
matter of risk assessment. If I'm going to cruise the beach @5-10MPH,
or take a quick ride a mile up the street in a safe & well enforced
25MPH zone, I generally don't wear it. If I'm going to be out riding
fast, or in major traffic, or anywhere I'm likely to be involved in an
accident, I wear it. Tell me, if my motorcycle never exceeds the
speeds you'd ride your bike without a helmet, why should I wear a
helmet to do the same on my motorcycle?
Jay Beattie
Come on Frank, there is plenty of evidence that helmets reduce or
prevent certain injuries, including scalp lacerations -- which can be
costly to repair unless Andrew does it for your free with his Velox
tubular repair kit. There is also good evidence that helmets are
useful in preventing or reducing morbidity/mortality from depressed
skull fracture and other focal injuries -- which are real concerns for
single track riders. Helmets can prevent certain injuries. Whether
that is a good enough reason to compel their use is a whole other
issue. There is plenty of justification for a personal choice to wear
a helmet, particularly by a commuter who is more likely to have low
speed falls on ice or obstacles. -- Jay Beattie.
Dan...@gmail.com
> I'm no helmet fanatic <snip>
and then...
> When it comes to MOTORCYCLES, I say anyone who rides without a "brain
> bucket" doesn't have anything worth saving up there anyways.
Sounds fairly fanatical to me. Perhaps you mean to say: "I'm no
*bicycle* helmet fanatic". Reminds me of a motorist who does not ride
a bike talking about how bike helmets should be mandated by law.
andre...@aol.com
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> -snip snip snip-
> >> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> >> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> -more snip-
>
> > So you don't need a helmet. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is
> > with your milk cow sig?
>
> If you like Holsteins (and who doesn't?), Wisconsin's where they hang out:http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m1/2029201962
>
> further reading:http://www.cias.wisc.edu/dairysch.html
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andrew:
That figures since you guys are the cheese makers of America. There
are a few of dairies in El Paso. When you ride by them, you get a nice
whiff of it. I was wondering why Tom finishes his signature with a
dairy cow. Is he from Wisconsin, or does he just like them?
Andres
Ron Ruff
> Helmets can prevent certain injuries.
If someone was going to club me over the head with a basball bat I'd
rather have helmet on, but injuries due to falling on your bike are
another story. Statistics show no reduction in head injuries or death
when helmets are mandated... ergo, they are ineffective. Some possible
reasons why are:
1) A person with a helmet on feels that their head is protected, so
they won't try as hard to keep from hitting it on the ground. An
analogy I like that most people can relate to, is carrying a fine
camera in your hand while negotiating rugged ground. If you fall, will
you try to save the camera or not (ie by not letting it hit the
ground)? What if it was in a padded styrofoam case that you thought
would allow it to survive dropping?
2) A helmet makes it more difficult to keep from hitting the ground
when tumbling or falling backward, since it sticks out 1-3 inches.
3) Some people will take more risks while wearing a helmet than they
would otherwise.
4) Helmets are designed to take direct hits, but the vast majority of
bike crashes involve glancing blows. Brain and neck damage caused by
sudden rotation would be more likely with a helmet on than without.
5) Most serious injuries and death involve getting hit by cars... and
helmets are little help against those kind of impacts.
I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
helmets please...
clareatsnyder.on.ca
>
>I believe that much like bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets are a
>matter of risk assessment. If I'm going to cruise the beach @5-10MPH,
>or take a quick ride a mile up the street in a safe & well enforced
>25MPH zone, I generally don't wear it. If I'm going to be out riding
>fast, or in major traffic, or anywhere I'm likely to be involved in an
>accident, I wear it. Tell me, if my motorcycle never exceeds the
>speeds you'd ride your bike without a helmet, why should I wear a
>helmet to do the same on my motorcycle?
Depends.
For one thing, if I dump a 30 lb bike, I can generally catch myself,
or at the very least I know I will not be pinned down by, or crushed
by the bike. A 600 lb motorcycle is a different story. If you are hit
even at low speeds on the motorcycle and knocked off balance into a
car, wall, post, curb, or whatever, the chances of being injured - and
the chance of a head injury IS higher than if on a bicycle.
And a "safe and well enforced 25MPH zone" is like a "safe school".
Doesn't mean some idiot still won't kill you.
Cruizing the beach? OK - might agree with you there, as long as there
is no high speed traffic and it is not a road.
I've driven ATVs without a helmet on low speed soft trails too.
Riding on city streets and highways, or back roads, I'll ALWAYS wear a
lid - no watter what the law requires. I've lost too many friends on
motorcycles. When you've been riding for 45 years that happens.
clareatsnyder.on.ca
I am no BIKE helmet fanatic. On my "bike" I often ride without.(around
town etc) but on major thoroughfares or fast cross-town runs, I prefer
to wear one, as uncomfortable as it may be. My kids both ride with -
and they are 25 and 26 this spring.
I've been riding MOTOR bikes for over 40 years. I won't get on a road
driven bike without a helmet. I won't get on a trail (motocross type)
bike without a helmet.
On the ATV, if I'm just putteringaround for a leisurely trail ride or
pulling around the yard, I go without. Any kind of thrashing around or
hard surface riding, on goes the helmet. And snowmobiles? I don't get
on without the "lid" - period.
Are there times when the helmet can CAUSE injury? Most likely, in the
case of mororcycle type helmets - not in the case of a lightweight
"bike" helmet. Are they comfortable? Definitely not
Dan...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:16:45 -0800 (PST), "DanK...@gmail.com"
>
> <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe that much like bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets are a
> >matter of risk assessment. If I'm going to cruise the beach @5-10MPH,
> >or take a quick ride a mile up the street in a safe & well enforced
> >25MPH zone, I generally don't wear it. If I'm going to be out riding
> >fast, or in major traffic, or anywhere I'm likely to be involved in an
> >accident, I wear it. Tell me, if my motorcycle never exceeds the
> >speeds you'd ride your bike without a helmet, why should I wear a
> >helmet to do the same on my motorcycle?
>
> Depends.
> For one thing, if I dump a 30 lb bike, I can generally catch myself,
> or at the very least I know I will not be pinned down by, or crushed
> by the bike. A 600 lb motorcycle is a different story. If you are hit
> even at low speeds on the motorcycle and knocked off balance into a
> car, wall, post, curb, or whatever, the chances of being injured - and
> the chance of a head injury IS higher than if on a bicycle.
I've been rear-ended by a car at a crosswalk on my motorcycle. I was
able to keep from ending up under it. It's 500lbs and not 600, but
it's easy enough to manage and get away from in such an event. I've
been riding dirt bikes & ATVs most of my life and getting pinned under
the machine has never really been a concern. Even if I were pinned,
it wouldn't be my head.
> And a "safe and well enforced 25MPH zone" is like a "safe school".
Neither is 100% safe, but since all the schools became gun free
killing zones I'd rather take my chances in the 25MPH zone.
> Doesn't mean some idiot still won't kill you.
No, it doesn't. It makes it extremely unlikey, however. That same
idiot might kill me on my bicycle there too, or you on your bicycle,
or me in my truck, but you're not pushing for bicycle helmets in those
situations. I feel a lot safer on my motorcycle on the road in
question than I do on my bicycle on that same road, helmet or not.
I've got 2 mirrors, more of a "vehicle" status to other motorists, and
the power to get away from a last second T-bone in a fraction of a
second if need be.
> Cruizing the beach? OK - might agree with you there, as long as there
> is no high speed traffic and it is not a road.
Oh, it is a road. Hampton Beach in Hampton, NH. People come from
hours in all directions (except from the east) for that beach. In the
summer traffic moves at walking pace. I see no reason to bake in my
helmet at what amounts to a walking pace.
> I've driven ATVs without a helmet on low speed soft trails too.
I'll do that just covering ground, but if I'm on an ATV I'm likely
doing crap that makes the helmet wise.
> Riding on city streets and highways, or back roads, I'll ALWAYS wear a
> lid - no watter what the law requires. I've lost too many friends on
> motorcycles. When you've been riding for 45 years that happens.
I know many who have been seriously hurt or lost on motorcycles.
However, it's never the 25mph trip 1/2 mile down the quiet street to
grab a part at the store, it's always in situations where I'd have
been wearing a helmet in the same situation.
Dan...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should mention that I wear a motorcycle helmet 99% of the time I
ride my motorcycle. I've never broken 30MPH without it, and I can't
say the same about the pedal bike. I'm picking on the "always" thing,
there are almost always (intended) instances that makes "always" a bad
statement.
Sandy
news:b705ea47-f44b-47b8...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
> wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
> helmets please...
Would this be what you were thinking of? Just the wrong shoes....
http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image.php?img=jf8e8abq.jpg
--
Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.
andre...@aol.com
> Dans le message denews:b705ea47-f44b-47b8...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
> Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
> > wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
> > helmets please...
>
> Would this be what you were thinking of? Just the wrong shoes....
>
> http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image.php?img=jf8e8abq.jpg
>
> --
> Sandy
> --
> C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
> Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
> à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
> Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
> un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
> -Delerm, P.
Oui, Oui! Where is that ride. I want to go.
Ozark Bicycle
> On Feb 21, 2:06 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> > As for your attack on faith and religion, it is also totally
> > un-called-for. Even many agnostic doctors have noted that there
> > APPEARS to be a co-relation, in many cases, between faith/prayer and
> > recovery.
>
> Living in the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt--I constantly hear lies
> like this trotted out as a fact.
IMO, this falls under the broad umbrella of the placebo effect. IOW,
"prayer" works because those involved *believe* it works. The same can
be said for witch doctors, homeopathy, crystals and much of western
medicine, etc., etc.
> And as always, I have to ask: is
> lying a sacrament for your particular sect? Hah ha hahaha!
If they lie, Jeeeeeeezus will forgive 'em! ;-)
Dan...@gmail.com
> Dans le message denews:b705ea47-f44b-47b8...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
>
> > I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
> > wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
> > helmets please...
>
> Would this be what you were thinking of? Just the wrong shoes....
>
> http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image.php?img=jf8e8abq.jpg
>
> --
> Sandy
> --
> C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
> Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
> à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
> Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
> un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
> -Delerm, P.
Where was that team when I raced BMX?!?!
clareatsnyder.on.ca
I'd say #3 is the most likely reason.
#2 is almost a non-player in my opinion with lightweight bicycle
helmets.
#4 is also almost a non-player with lightweight bicycle helmets in my
opinion.
As for #5, low speed collision with a vehicle can be surviveable if
you don't crack your gourd on the ground when you get knocked off your
bike. High speed collisions? The helmet will not do much if any good.
The styrofoam helmets mandated for bicycle use will not protect you
from major trauma. Might not save too many lives, but can definitely
reduce injuries in lower speed situations.
Jay Beattie
> Dans le message denews:b705ea47-f44b-47b8...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
>
> > I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
> > wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
> > helmets please...
>
> Would this be what you were thinking of? Just the wrong shoes....
>
> http://www.hiboox.com/lang-fr/image.php?img=jf8e8abq.jpg
>
Eeeeek! I brought that picture up at work. Thank god my secretary
was not looking over my shoulder. I'd have to defend a harassment
suit. -- Jay Beattie.
Bill Sornson
Get a new secretary.
Michael Press
"Pat" <ch...@clock.com> wrote:
> >> I also hit my head on a gravel lot one day coming home from school
> >> (this in the days before kids got helmets with their bikes). It was
> >> my first concussion. It was the day after the Evel Kneivel movie
> >> aired on TV, and the incident involved a four-foot concrete retaining
> >> wall and a long board that happened to be laying around...
> >
> > What is the point of this anecdote?
> >
> > Wear a helmet because you never know when you might
> > do something mortally stupid?
>
> His "anecdotes" are real world experiences. The point? Accidents happen.
> That's why they're called accidents and people need to be prepared....
It was not an accident.
--
Michael Press
Jay
"landotter" <land...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff1f0d3a-cf54-4f06...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> That's par for the course for Chicago riders--I even knew cops that
> rode, and the basic rules were: stay alive, but get there fast and
> legally enough. So that means wrong way riding is a no no, but rolling
> a light when you can get away with it is acceptable. I certainly don't
> ride like that in Nashville.
>
> Helmets are nice for girls that don't like scars. They're great
> laceration preventers, for sure. I prefer looking like a pugilist.
>
Hey LO -
U da man!
I don't care if everyone else in RBT is against us. We kin handel dos wuses!
Dey don' kno wha' dare in 4!
I really DO need to see the stats on how bike helmets prevent head injuries,
for low speed bike commuters. Which RBT adults are wrecking, and making
initial contact with the pavement, with their HEAD?! Why were they unable to
break their fall with their hands? BTW: That is why I have had hand and
wrist injuries - I was successfully breaking my fall - SO MY HELMET-LESS
HEAD DOES NOT GET DENTED! It is a natural instinct to try to break one's
fall with one's hands.
I sincerely regret that I cannot express my position more clearly.
As all RBT surely knows at this point, I am not a Usenet (or bike) sheep. I
have recently been called a 'free-thinker', and I want to wear this as a
badge of honor, on my bike. Details later...but I digress.
Love to all Usenet (and I mean that in the best way),
J.
Michael Press
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
A helmet sticks out, therefore it bumps into things.
Do you wear your helmet while doing things other than
riding a bicycle. Loading the car? Entering or exiting
the car?
Ever worn a hard hat for extended periods?
Ever worn a bicycle helmet while doing
somersaults? Try it.
Do you wear a regular hat?
When wearing a regular hat that extends
do you engage in activities other than
standing or sitting erect?
For instance do you wear a gardening hat
and rummage in the garden shed, bumping
the hat into things?
Unless you have thoroughly investigated the
matter, you are out of your depth denying #2.
--
Michael Press
Jay
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fpj3bl$v33$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
> Helmets appear to be fairly effective as "bump and scratch" protectors,
> but population studies show no benefit in reducing serious brain injuries
> and/or deaths.
>
> I know my bicycle foam hat saved me from a minor scalp wound when I was
> hit on the head by a minivan hatch (failing lift struts were to blame).
>
> --
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
Coming from one of our senior RBT contributors, I feel my position has been
vindicated.
Many cyclists feel safer in a helmet. I encourage them to continue wearing a
helmet. I am not trying to dissuade helmet wearing.
I merely suggest, for my own personal riding style, it is somewhere between
irrelevant and silly, perhaps vain?
J.
Tom Sherman
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> -snip snip snip-
>>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> -more snip-
>> So you don't need a helmet. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is
>> with your milk cow sig?
>
> If you like Holsteins (and who doesn't?), Wisconsin's where they hang out:
I understand there is a LBS in Wisconsin that uses a Holstein-Friesian
cow on bicycle wheels as a logo, despite having "Jersey" in the name. ;)
Tom Sherman
And yes, I am north of the "Cheddar Curtain".
--
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:11:45 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
>
>
> >when tumbling or falling backward, since it sticks out 1-3 inches.
>
> helmets.
It's not the weight, so much as the size.
I can recall hitting my head only once while bicycling. I was about
16 (well over 40 years ago) and using my bike to deliver papers in
winter. While turning at very slow speed, I hit glare ice and somehow
fell straight backwards. I landed flat on my back and the back of my
head hit the ground.
It hurt a bit, enough to raise a curse word but not a bump. But if
I'd had a helmet on? Even if it were not the fashionable kind with
the inane swoopy "aerodynamic" tail, it would have hit the ground much
harder than my head did. I'm sure I would have thought that it saved
me from terrible trauma.
As it was, all I thought was that I needed to watch closer for ice. I
never once thought "Wow - I need something to protect my head!" And
indeed, in the many decades of riding since then, I never have.
P.S. It occurs to me, I may have been wearing a knit stocking cap.
Is it possible _that_ saved my life?? ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
Jay
"A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13rrdks...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> It's religious.
> No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
> And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
> Andrew MuziAndrew,
You are, of course, correct, as is your wont.
I was just looking for RBT opinions on my bike behavior. Not trying to
change any existing opinions.
J.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:40:37 -0800 (PST), frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> >>...
> >> Is there ANY doubt in my mind, or hers, that the helmet saved her from
>
> >And there are lots of folks without ANY doubt - NOT A BIT!!!! - that
> >they were cured by their prayers, or by their witch doctor, or by
> >rubbing their skin with a potato that they then buried in the back
> >yard during a full moon...
>
>
> You, my friend, did not see the helmet. I did.
:-) And you, my friend, did not see the witch doctor. At least, I'm
assuming you didn't!
"Honest! I swear! When he covered my eyes and smacked my head, I
felt the evil spirit leave me!"
> As for your attack on faith and religion, it is also totally
> un-called-for. Even many agnostic doctors have noted that there
> APPEARS to be a co-relation, in many cases, between faith/prayer and
> recovery. Don't discount it out of hand.
Trust me, I don't intend to attack anyone's religion. In fact, I've
been on the other side of that argument in this forum.
But ISTM the best data doesn't do much to prove prayer cures disease.
I've lost enough friends and family members to know it certainly
doesn't work all the time.
And even the most committed churchgoers tend to have a dim view of
people who pray to the wrong gods, let alone "superstitions" like
witch doctors and potatoes.
So how do we tell what really works? Generally, we collect and
analyze data. And that's what shows that helmets don't do what's
claimed, at least to a detecable degree. No matter how fervently
their proponents believe they do.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fpj3bl$v33$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Helmets appear to be fairly effective as "bump and scratch" protectors,
>> but population studies show no benefit in reducing serious brain injuries
>> and/or deaths.
>>
>> I know my bicycle foam hat saved me from a minor scalp wound when I was
>> hit on the head by a minivan hatch (failing lift struts were to blame).
>>
>>
>
> Coming from one of our senior RBT contributors, I feel my position has been
> vindicated.
>
> Many cyclists feel safer in a helmet. I encourage them to continue wearing a
> helmet. I am not trying to dissuade helmet wearing.
>
> I merely suggest, for my own personal riding style, it is somewhere between
> irrelevant and silly, perhaps vain?
>
Well, the other factor in favor of wearing a helmet is that you will
appear to be a "responsible cyclist" to police and jurors if you are so
unfortunate to be involved in an accident. Note how almost every news
report on a traffic accident involving a cyclist mentions that he or she
was or was not wearing a helmet.
Tom Sherman
> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
>>> Is there ANY doubt in my mind, or hers, that the helmet saved her
>>> from serious injury? NOT A BIT!
>
>> they were cured by their prayers, or by their witch doctor, or by
>> rubbing their skin with a potato that they then buried in the back
>> yard during a full moon...
>
> based on statistics of head injuries, but rather the demand by helmet
> manufacturers and those religiously attached to the belief that there
> were such incidents and that bicycle helmets would have prevented
> these non-occurring injuries.
>
Is not one of the main points of UCI competition to allow manufacturers
to sell "the same gear the pros use"?
Pretty clever to be able to sell some nylon webbing and molded expanded
polystyrene for a couple of hundred bucks, eh?
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> I think it would be much better to promote the image of hot chicks
> wearing dresses and high heels cruising around town on bikes... no
> helmets please...
Here is a blog for you then: <http://copenhagengirlsonbikes.blogspot.com/>.
Great place in the summer - long days, cool temperatures and a clean
wind off the North Sea.
Tom Sherman
Yes, Sandy Leurre should have posted a "Not Safe for Work" warning.
Jay
"Jay" <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PJudnV5xqrEzWiHa...@comcast.com...
> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>
> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach
> steer horns, such as these:
>
> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>
> Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
> injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
> close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
> simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the
> coffee shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement -
> and I don't even care!)
>
> J.
>
I must hereby confess to my RBT friends - I started this thread in a
incoherent drunken stupor. I have begun the 12 step thing, but I am not sure
it has kicked in just yet.
Now that you mention it, is the BIG RBT HELMET CONTROVERSY in regard to...:
1. Should I wear a helmet at all; or,
2. Which particular brand of helmet is the 'best' (however 'best' is
defined).
As always, I defer to the RBT experts.
Thanks.
Your loyal servant,
Serf J.
frkr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 21, 11:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:36 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> > > It's religious.
> > > No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
> > > And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
>
>
> > First, there are many of us here whose views have been changed by
> > rational argument - or in my case, by investigation of actual data to
> > which people pointed me, which is the same thing. I was once pro-
> > helmet. I no longer am, because of that data.
>
> > Second, I do think America's intense helmet promotion is harmful, even
> > absent compulsion. The promotion is almost always done by stating or
> > implying that bicycling is really, really dangerous. That
> > exaggeration of the danger is a lie, but it still scares people away
> > from bikes, and works against cyclists who get hurt by negligent
> > drivers. It prejudices police, judges and juries.
>
> > I think it's important to show that ordinary cycling is an acceptably
> > safe and beneficial activity. Helmeteers, in general, disagree. They
> > claim you're not safe unless you're wearing a funny hat, despite the
> > fact that the hats haven't been shown to make a detectable difference.
>
> Come on Frank, there is plenty of evidence that helmets reduce or
> prevent certain injuries, including scalp lacerations -- which can be
> costly to repair unless Andrew does it for your free with his Velox
> tubular repair kit.
But is laceration protection the rationale for helmet promotion and/or
mandates? Not even close. Check the testimony that's resulted in
mandatory helmet laws; or check the hundreds of pages that try to
convince people that helmets are necessary. They give the impression
(whether explicitly or implicitly) that bicycling is a very serious
source of incurable brain injuries and TBI fatalities. And they
either imply or claim outright that wearing a bike helmet offers very
significant protection against such injuries. Of course, the most
common claim is "up to 85%." (And you've got to love that "up to"
part.)
> There is also good evidence that helmets are
> useful in preventing or reducing morbidity/mortality from depressed
> skull fracture and other focal injuries -- which are real concerns for
> single track riders.
You may be aware of some "good evidence" that's escaped me. I don't
recall any study that separated out, say, depressed skull fracture
mortality from other mechanisms. But as far as I've been able to
determine, there are NO decent studies that prove any helmet affect on
overall bicycle fatalities. If you've got some, I'd like to see a
citation.
Part of the problem - if you call it that - is that bicycling
fatalities are so incredibly rare that you can't find enough of them
to use for statistics. As I've mentioned recently, I came across more
multi-country data on the number of miles ridden between fatalities.
It confirms what I'd seen previously - a typical number is about
fifteen MILLION miles ridden between bike fatalities. Wearing a hat
to prevent one specific type of head injury fatality is nearly as
sensible as carrying an anti-satellite umbrella!
> Helmets can prevent certain injuries.
Of course. So can knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, and (in at least one
incident) a Zippo lighter in a shirt pocket.
> Whether
> that is a good enough reason to compel their use is a whole other
> issue.
It's part of the issue, to be sure. I've been in committee hearings
where all sorts of distortions and illogical extrapolations were
offered as testimony, including extrapolations from minor helmet dents
to serious brain injury. Also, there's one infamous paper that took
the Thompson & Rivara "85%" (which actually applied almost entirely to
minor injuries) and extrapolated it to fatalities! Unfortunately,
legislators frequently buy into that garbage.
> There is plenty of justification for a personal choice to wear
> a helmet, particularly by a commuter who is more likely to have low
> speed falls on ice or obstacles.
And as described in an earlier post, I'm a guy that has fallen on
ice. But a helmet wouldn't have been worth wearing.
Still, if you want to wear one, that's fine by me. I won't tell you
not to. I'm not interested in mandating behavior either way.
But if a person gives invalid reasons to justify their choice - and
especially, if he uses those to imply others should make the same
choice - then he should be prepared to defend his logic.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> Ever worn a hard hat for extended periods?
>
Tom Sherman
> On Feb 21, 5:39 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:11:45 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
>>
>>
>>> 2) A helmet makes it more difficult to keep from hitting the ground
>>> when tumbling or falling backward, since it sticks out 1-3 inches.
>> #2 is almost a non-player in my opinion with lightweight bicycle
>> helmets.
>
> It's not the weight, so much as the size.
>
> I can recall hitting my head only once while bicycling. I was about
> 16 (well over 40 years ago) and using my bike to deliver papers in
> winter. While turning at very slow speed, I hit glare ice and somehow
> fell straight backwards. I landed flat on my back and the back of my
> head hit the ground.
>
> It hurt a bit, enough to raise a curse word but not a bump. But if
> I'd had a helmet on? Even if it were not the fashionable kind with
> the inane swoopy "aerodynamic" tail, it would have hit the ground much
> harder than my head did. I'm sure I would have thought that it saved
I wish the old "Skid Lid" was still available. Much lighter, smaller and
more comfortable than current helmets, with equally good bump and scrape
protection.
Are the old leather "hair nets" still available?
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> I must hereby confess to my RBT friends - I started this thread in a
> incoherent drunken stupor. I have begun the 12 step thing, but I am not sure
Is that the program where one starts the day with a full 12-pack and
ends the day with a empty 12-pack?
(Been there, done that. - Sadly, upper GI tract problems limit me to
nothing but the most bland food.)
Bill Sornson
Dude, get a sponsor.
Jay
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
Live every day as if it were your last day on earh.
That has worked for me quite well...so far.
J.
Ron Ruff
wrote:
> Are the old leather "hair nets" still available?
Before my time, but they were probably more effective at providing
some protection. I'd go for lightly padded thin hard shell with plenty
of vents. Too bad no one will ever make one...
Andre Jute
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
I've been saved from serious head injuries in motoring incidents by
helmets. I consider it worth wearing a cycle helmet because it will
stop gashes and abrasions (and I would anyway wear a hat outdoors);
ditto for gloves. But, to avoid arguments about the inconclusive
statistics on helmet-wearing, I normally just say I wear a cycling
helmet as an example to the kids.
There is also an argument that a helmet is a place to stick more
reflective tape, lights, mirrors, all of them adding to your safety
margin. On the other hand, the placebo effect that has been mentioned,
the feelgood quotient of the helmet, shouldn't lead anyone into acting
recklessly. When placebos "cure" disease, it isn't a miracle, it is
bad science in the actual subject of the test.
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
Yup. Pain in the neck, but a NEESSARY pain in the neck
>
>Ever worn a bicycle helmet while doing
>somersaults? Try it.
>Do you wear a regular hat?
Yup. For over 15 years I wore a stetson almost everywhere.
>When wearing a regular hat that extends
>do you engage in activities other than
>standing or sitting erect?
Ever live in equatorial regions where going without a hat means burned
ears, burned neck, burned nose, etc? 3 or 4 inch rim and it even
stayed on playing soccer. (most of the time anyway) That was 2 years
out of the 15
As a mechanic I wore a hat (ballcap) most of the time when under cars.
Saved my scalp MANY times as it served as an "early warning system"
keeping me from hitting my tender scalp on the hoist and various HARD
parts of the underside of vehicles.
That hat stayed on my head whether I was standing under the hoist or
laying on my back on the creeper.
>For instance do you wear a gardening hat
>and rummage in the garden shed, bumping
>the hat into things?
>
>Unless you have thoroughly investigated the
>matter, you are out of your depth denying #2.
Not as deep as you.
clareatsnyder.on.ca
>But is laceration protection the rationale for helmet promotion and/or
>mandates? Not even close. Check the testimony that's resulted in
>mandatory helmet laws; or check the hundreds of pages that try to
>convince people that helmets are necessary. They give the impression
>(whether explicitly or implicitly) that bicycling is a very serious
>source of incurable brain injuries and TBI fatalities. And they
>either imply or claim outright that wearing a bike helmet offers very
>significant protection against such injuries. Of course, the most
>common claim is "up to 85%." (And you've got to love that "up to"
>part.)
>
>> There is also good evidence that helmets are
>> useful in preventing or reducing morbidity/mortality from depressed
>> skull fracture and other focal injuries -- which are real concerns for
>> single track riders.
>
>You may be aware of some "good evidence" that's escaped me. I don't
>recall any study that separated out, say, depressed skull fracture
>mortality from other mechanisms. But as far as I've been able to
>determine, there are NO decent studies that prove any helmet affect on
>overall bicycle fatalities. If you've got some, I'd like to see a
>citation.
You know there ARE things worse than a sudden death. Like living with
seriously diminished capacity because of non-fatal head injury.
Colin Campbell
> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>
> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
> horns, such as these:
>
> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>
> Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
> injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
> close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
> simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
> shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
> don't even care!)
>
> J.
>
>
Please feel free NOT to wear a helmet, then. If and when your time
comes, we'll be sorry to see you go....
They're just as useless as seat belts, which have no great value until
you have an accident. But then, you don't have time to latch them up!
By the way, why do you ride less than 15 mph? Is that the commuter
bicycle speed limit? I used to see how fast I could get to work, and
that involved exceeding 15 mph.
Zoot Katz
>The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
>horns, such as these:
>
>http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
I found the helmet's biggest safety benefit is that it's a great
place to stick lots of reflective tape.
Steer horns are good too.
I'd like to make a Trojan type helmet crest of light fibers. Sota
like a punk's purple and green Mohawk. I did one crest with wheel
reflectors and hot glue. It survived half the ride. I've seen lots
of rubber lizards attached to helmets.
IMO, a rubber chicken or wreath of plastic flowers tied to our heads
offers more safety, pre-crash, than any of the usually seen foamies.
Create "mental speed bumps". Streamers are good.
White helmets are most visible from a distance. I usually spot a
white helmet long before noticing that the rider is towing a trailer
or riding a bent with a fluorescent orange pennant on a pole.
I live in a MHL jurisdiction. Even though the law is rarely enforced
I wear a helmet anyway. I'd worn it since way before there was a law.
It's mainly a talisman that wards off bears and pigs. I've overcome
believing it offers any actual protection. In thirty years all it's
done is deflect a few stones and insects.
Here's the helmet I wear for making a "fashion statement".
<http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/434309078_9f3b31b314.jpg?v=1174898166>
It gets lots of favourable comments and people asking to take
pictures. It's also mocks the disapproving liddites when I tell them
it was CSA approved. It's definitely one piece of headgear I'd
rather not be wearing in the off chance I did smack my squash.
--
zk
Michael Press
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
A helmet cannot reduce torsion, the primary
mode of serious brain and brain stem injury.
Exactly how much brain injury have bicycle
helmets prevented?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Colin Campbell <cmc...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Jay wrote:
> > Dear RBT Bike Experts:
> >
> > The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
> > horns, such as these:
> >
> > http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
> >
> > Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
> > injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
> > close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
> > simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
> > shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
> > don't even care!)
>
> Please feel free NOT to wear a helmet, then. If and when your time
> comes, we'll be sorry to see you go....
Shall we meditate on your imminent demise?
--
Michael Press
A Muzi
>> -snip snip snip-
>>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>>>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>> ndre...@aol.com wrote:
>> -more snip-
>>> So you don't need a helmet. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is
>>> with your milk cow sig?
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> If you like Holsteins (and who doesn't?), Wisconsin's where they hang
>> out:
Tom Sherman wrote:
> I understand there is a LBS in Wisconsin that uses a Holstein-Friesian
> cow on bicycle wheels as a logo, despite having "Jersey" in the name. ;)
Our first graphic attempt was a Jersey, done by an actual fine artist
married to a bovine expert. Ugly.
Our beautiful Holstein was done by a cartoonist.
Zoot Katz
PUI gets you tossed, buddy.
I shoulda read the whole thread before taking the bait.
This type of thread belongs in r.b.m
Technically:
1) A helmet* can offer a form of practical head gear better served,
excepting maybe falling rubble, by other forms of headgear. Think
Sou'w ester, Deer Stalker, skull-cap, engineer's cap, toque, etc.
2) The best helmet is the one you don't test.
* Of the two helmets I wear most frequently, one was designed for
white-water and the other is for skating. Neither has a visor so I
don't tweeze my eyebrows.
--
zk
frkr...@gmail.com
>
>
> You know there ARE things worse than a sudden death. Like living with
> seriously diminished capacity because of non-fatal head injury.
If that's your judgment call, fine. But don't try to imply that such
a thing is a likely result of riding a bike. That's just more false
fear mongering.
In America, the percentage of head injury fatalities attributed to
cycling is less than one percent. The percentage of "seriously
diminished capacity, non-fatal HI" is likely about the same. The per-
hour risk of such injury is likely about the same for cyclists as for
pedestrians - or actually, probably less, since cyclists' per-hour
fatality rate is less than that of pedestrians.
We've had a couple head injury specialists check into these
discussions over the years, saying "If you've seen what I've
seen...". I also discussed this face to face with another such
specialist, who was saying the same thing. But when I asked about the
number, or the percentage, of their patients that were cyclists, they
were forced to agree with me that cycling was a negligible contributor
to the problem. One specialist admitted she'd seen only one cyclist
in seven years of full-time practice, and he was a racer - meaning he
was probably helmeted when he crashed.
BTW, some HI specialists were not forced to agree with me. They
realized they could refuse to answer the question, and simply vanish.
- Frank Krygowski
Zoot Katz
<sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ever worn a hard hat for extended periods?
>>
>60+ hours a week for a couple of years.
I have a scar on the bridge of my nose from a hard hat blocking my
overhead vision of a beam I'd have otherwise seen and avoided trying
to lift with my head.
--
zk
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
>
>A helmet cannot reduce torsion, the primary
>mode of serious brain and brain stem injury.
>
>Exactly how much brain injury have bicycle
>helmets prevented?
I'd say it is impossible to say If someone is NOT injured, it is
difficult or impossible to say how seriously they WOULD have been
injured without protection.
It is a little easier to say how much LESS an injured someone may
have been injured if they had been wearing protection but still not a
definite science.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Ever worn a hard hat for extended periods?
>> 60+ hours a week for a couple of years.
> I have a scar on the bridge of my nose from a hard hat blocking my
> overhead vision of a beam I'd have otherwise seen and avoided trying
> to lift with my head.
Hard hats for construction work are not meant to protect the head from
crashes but rather from dropped hardware, like nuts and bolts or
tools. For that they are worthwhile and have greatly reduced head
injuries from such impacts, for which they need no padding (crush
zone) like crash helmets.
Jobst Brandt
Zoot Katz
<rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Before my time, but they were probably more effective at providing
>some protection. I'd go for lightly padded thin hard shell with plenty
>of vents. Too bad no one will ever make one...
I have a six-point suspension mount old-skool kayak hat that's made
to drain water. The 5mm closed-cell foam padding is only in the top
and neck Plenty of ventilation, adjustability, durability and
dorkiness* in a hard shell helmet.
*Actually it's retro-cool now. It's Swedish made by Romer ~1975.
--
zk
Dan O
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fpj3bl$v33$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Helmets appear to be fairly effective as "bump and scratch" protectors,
> > but population studies show no benefit in reducing serious brain injuries
> > and/or deaths.
>
> > I know my bicycle foam hat saved me from a minor scalp wound when I was
> > hit on the head by a minivan hatch (failing lift struts were to blame).
>
> > --
> > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
>
> Coming from one of our senior RBT contributors, I feel my position has been
> vindicated.
>
> Many cyclists feel safer in a helmet. I encourage them to continue wearing a
> helmet. I am not trying to dissuade helmet wearing.
>
> I merely suggest, for my own personal riding style, it is somewhere between
> irrelevant and silly, perhaps vain?
>
> J.
So as not to leave the impression that my concussions (only one of
which is recounted here so far) have left me stubbornly steadfast on
one side of this question, I was riding down main street a couple of
days ago - well over the posted 20 mph speed limit - with no helmet on
myself. I would've put it on, but it was all the way at the other end
of the house, and if I 'd gone to get it the kids might have seen me
with it and then *they'd* have all wanted to go riding and then
instead of just hopping on for a quick ride I'd have been stuck first
getting a bunch of little shoes and socks and jackets and helmets on
and pumping a bunch of tires and then doing little circles in the
street trying to keep everybody herded and gradually moving in some
semblance of a common direction.
Mark
<Dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 20, 10:18 pm, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOS...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:37:09 -0600, "Jay" <jbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
>> >horns, such as these:
>>
>> >http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>>
>> >Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
>> >injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
>> >close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
>> >simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
>> >shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
>> >don't even care!)
>>
>> Well, since a helmet is required to reduce the acceleration in an
>> impact of 15 mph to below the injury threshold, one might reasonably
>> conclude low speed riders are the only one who might benefit from
>> wearing a helmet.
>>
>> I wear one for SWMBO, and because I'm required to wear one to ride a
>> bike near work.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> Email address works as is.
>
>
>When people talk about only being useful if you tip over, and 15mph
>impact thresholds, what helmet are they talking about? This:
>http://tinyurl.com/2vh3mg? Maybe this: http://tinyurl.com/2oggr6?
>Surely not his: http://tinyurl.com/2vk9wt?
I've never seen a helment called "404 Not found" ;-)
M.
Dan...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:07:46 -0800 (PST), "DanK...@gmail.com"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heh... how about that. The question marks got caught into the
links. Try it again if you'd like.
_
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:36:34 -0600, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Jay wrote:
>>> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
>>> horns, such as these:
>>> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>>> Come on guys...I have been in plenty of wrecks. My head has NEVER been
>>> injured. Wrists, hips, knees, hands, etc, YES. But not my head - not even
>>> close. I suggest, helmets for low speed bike commuters (< 15 mph), are
>>> simply a fashion statement. And for bragging rights to ladies at the coffee
>>> shop (...I can afford to blow $100 on this useless accoutrement - and I
>>> don't even care!)
>>
>>It's religious.
>>No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
>>And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
>
> My eldest daugther (16 or 17 at the time) lost a pedal on her bike
> coming down a steep curve in the road and lost control of the bike.
> She ended up against a concrete retaining wall with a mild headache
> and a sore neck, with a split helmet.
Helmets that split have failed to protect. The split takes VERY little
energy - if a magic foam hat is to do anything it must compress without
separation. Your daughter's did not. Most likely it split because the
impact was not normal (in the geometric sense) and the additional torsion
is what caused her sore neck; had she not been wearing a helmet, she might
well have been less injured.
Of course, the indoctrination to which you have been exposed is quite
strong, and it is likely that you will not accept this. If you truly are
interested in the putative protective worth of magic foam hats you should
go to www.cyclehelmets.org and do a little reading; then come back when
have educated yourself.
_
> On Feb 21, 11:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 12:36 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's religious.
>>> No amount of rational argument will change anyone's view.
>>> And, like religion, harmless until it comes to compulsion.
>>
>> Sorry, Andrew, but I disagree on two points.
>>
>> First, there are many of us here whose views have been changed by
>> rational argument - or in my case, by investigation of actual data to
>> which people pointed me, which is the same thing. I was once pro-
>> helmet. I no longer am, because of that data.
>>
>> Second, I do think America's intense helmet promotion is harmful, even
>> absent compulsion. The promotion is almost always done by stating or
>> implying that bicycling is really, really dangerous. That
>> exaggeration of the danger is a lie, but it still scares people away
>> from bikes, and works against cyclists who get hurt by negligent
>> drivers. It prejudices police, judges and juries.
>>
>> I think it's important to show that ordinary cycling is an acceptably
>> safe and beneficial activity. Helmeteers, in general, disagree. They
>> claim you're not safe unless you're wearing a funny hat, despite the
>> fact that the hats haven't been shown to make a detectable difference.
>
> Come on Frank, there is plenty of evidence that helmets reduce or
> prevent certain injuries, including scalp lacerations -- which can be
> costly to repair unless Andrew does it for your free with his Velox
> tubular repair kit. There is also good evidence that helmets are
> useful in preventing or reducing morbidity/mortality from depressed
> skull fracture and other focal injuries -- which are real concerns for
> single track riders. Helmets can prevent certain injuries. Whether
> that is a good enough reason to compel their use is a whole other
> issue. There is plenty of justification for a personal choice to wear
> a helmet, particularly by a commuter who is more likely to have low
> speed falls on ice or obstacles. -- Jay Beattie.
And yet the most reliable and most valid statistics show zero or a
negative effect on helmet injury rate. If what you say is true (helmets
reduce minor injuries) and as we know the overall rate does not fall, or
rises slightly; it means that helmets increase major injuries. Given this
inescapable conclusion, would you still reccomend wearing a magic foam hat?
_
> On Feb 21, 1:19 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> Helmets can prevent certain injuries.
>
> If someone was going to club me over the head with a basball bat I'd
> rather have helmet on, but injuries due to falling on your bike are
> another story. Statistics show no reduction in head injuries or death
> when helmets are mandated... ergo, they are ineffective. Some possible
> reasons why are:
>
> 4) Helmets are designed to take direct hits, but the vast majority of
> bike crashes involve glancing blows. Brain and neck damage caused by
> sudden rotation would be more likely with a helmet on than without.
>
Just like clare-at-snyder-on-ca's daughter.
_
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:53:08 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>A helmet cannot reduce torsion, the primary
>>mode of serious brain and brain stem injury.
>>
>>Exactly how much brain injury have bicycle
>>helmets prevented?
> I'd say it is impossible to say If someone is NOT injured, it is
> difficult or impossible to say how seriously they WOULD have been
> injured without protection.
> It is a little easier to say how much LESS an injured someone may
> have been injured if they had been wearing protection but still not a
> definite science.
Actually, it is very easy to say.
What you would do is get a large population, like, say, the size of one of
the Australian states; introduce a mandatory helmet law, which has a major
and sudden change in the rates of helmet-wearing, and measure the rates of
head injury.
Guess what - it''s been done.
Guess what - no change.
Guess what - the helmet manufacturers made LOTS of money.
Tim McNamara
_ <jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
IIRC spain imposed some kind of MHL a few years back, but I haven't ever
seen any data about that.
> Guess what - no change.
The rates of head injuries for cyclists actually rose slightly after the
imposition of the MHL in Australia. The theory is that the number of
cyclists decreased significantly after the introduction of the law-
rather than buy and wear a helmet, lots of people just stopped riding-
and a decreased presence of cyclists on the roads resulted in increased
risk for each cyclist still out there.
carl...@comcast.net
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>IIRC spain imposed some kind of MHL a few years back, but I haven't ever
>seen any data about that.
Dear Tim,
Spain's not-inside-city-limits or on-steep-hill helmet law seems to be
the silliest of the recent spate of European helmet laws:
"Finland passed a mandatory helmet law with an effective date of
January, 2003. It covers all ages, but there is no fine associated
with breaking the law. Spain adopted a mandatory helmet law for
cycling outside of cities in 2004. Helmets are not compulsory in towns
and may be removed while climbing steep hills. Iceland and the Czech
Republic require helmets for those under 16."
http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Rex Kerr
> lane (adjacent to a school). There was this car was coming out of the
> school parking lot, stopped at the sidewalk / bike lane. He wanted to
> turn right onto the road, looked up the road to his left, and saw no
> traffic coming that way.
Because, unless you live in the UK or some other country that drives on
the left, THAT'S WHERE HE EXPECTED TRAFFIC TO BE COMING FROM.
> Of course, I was just a stupid, lucky punk at the time. I should have
> made eye contact before riding out in front of him like that, so maybe
> helmets are only good for saving people from themselves, but there it
> is.
No, you should have been on the other side of the road where he wouldn't
have hit you, or had he also been on the other side of the road, he
would have been looking in your direction!!
Michael Press
<8090881e-c9e6-40b9...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
I learned to say "Coward" at a retreating back.
That burns their ears.
--
Michael Press