Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots.

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Garry Lee

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,
hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
afforded excellent protection. He died.

Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.

THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
so different.

Open your minds, but not your heads.


Tim Jurik

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Although I do wear a helmet, I disagree with your statements regarding
Fabio's crash. The crashes were not "almost identical." Unfortunately I
think that you may have started yet another time-wasting helmet war.

Tim


Garry Lee wrote in message <6oj06v$b7u$1...@news1.news.iol.ie>...

Bob Schwartz

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
If you simply *must* have at the helmet wars (and remember,
they're totally, completely, utterly pointless, please
consider abstaining) I have gone through the trouble of
following up Garry's horribly cross-posted basenote while
limiting the distribution to the proper newsgroup: 'rec.bicycles.soc'

Those of you that insist on wallowing in helmet threads are
urged to follow up that post rather than Garry's original
post, thus sparing us the re-re-re-re-re-hashing of what
has already gone countless times before. Garry's complete
text is there for attribution.

Bob "Wish blunt instruments worked over the net" Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Garry Lee wrote:
>
> Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a
> bollard, hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was
> travelling at about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered
> a depressed fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet
> would have afforded excellent protection. He died.

Gary, where did you get that description of the accident? At the time
the description was: Casartelli was descending at over 40 mph (64 kph)
when he came off. He struck the edge of a concrete castlation, that are
commonly used to restrain automobiles, with the front of his face and
pushed the cheek area back into the skull.

The described symtoms of extreme respiratory distress that were
in that article corresponded pretty well with the description of
the accident. Later an Italian doctor during an interview said that
a helmet wouldn't have helped Casartelli because the injuries were to
the front of the face, an area not protected by a helmet.

Moreover, other data suggests that perhaps over HALF of serious head
injuries sustained on bicycles are to the face. This lends further
veracity to that version of the story.

> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a
> stone wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no

> memory of it. The top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris


> suffered a fractured wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his
> home in the UK.

Yet he seems not to show the symtoms of great accelerations on his
brain.

> The crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the
> results so different.

The crashes as I've seen described are completely different. The
helmet could have had no bearing in Casartelli's accident and it
isn't clear that the helmet lent any significant protection to
Boardman who is again out for the season with a broken wrist.

> Open your minds, but not your heads.

I am not suggesting that racers shouldn't wear helmets. What I am
suggesting is that they will lend only the most infinitessimal
protection. For Boardman that may have been enough.

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

>Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,
>hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
>about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
>fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
>afforded excellent protection. He died.
>

>Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
>wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.

>THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured

>wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>

>THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
>so different.
>


>Open your minds, but not your heads.
>


It's no use. The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
talk about.........

1. Wearing Helmets in your car.
2. How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
helped by the helmet?
3. How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
a helmet
4. Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
5. Is OJ innocent.


<G>


Bob Cardone


Perry

unread,
Jul 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/15/98
to
Tom Kunich is absolutely right. Casartelli's crash was at high speed and no
helmet would have saved him. I was in Italy at the time, and initial footage
from the scene of the accident was extremely gruesome. This differs from
what you see in FCV Tour videotape for that year. I don't think I have ever
been so shocked (there were millions of us watching that day, the telecast
was stopped as soon as he was pronounced dead). Sometimes we are placed in
circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
stupid. Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.

Jer

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:03:17 GMT, Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com>
wrote:


>
>The described symtoms of extreme respiratory distress that were
>in that article corresponded pretty well with the description of
>the accident. Later an Italian doctor during an interview said that
>a helmet wouldn't have helped Casartelli because the injuries were to
>the front of the face, an area not protected by a helmet.
>

I believe those helmets those downhill single track riders wear offer
some face protection. Perhaps maybe all riders should wear like NHL
goalie masks with face protection. Personally I wear a goalie mask
whenever I am not sleeping cause I will be safer, even in bed if I am
awake as things can get a little rough in there!

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>> bollard, hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was
>> travelling at about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered
>> a depressed fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet


Much Tripe snipped


>>.
>The crashes as I've seen described are completely different. The
>helmet could have had no bearing in Casartelli's accident and it
>isn't clear that the helmet lent any significant protection to
>Boardman who is again out for the season with a broken wrist.
>

>> Open your minds, but not your heads.

I knew it <G>

Bob Cardone

David Steuber The Interloper

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
On 15 Jul 1998 19:33:51 GMT, Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> claimed or
asked:

% Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
% wall, head first.

Bob Cardone not withstanding, 35 mph is about the speed you reach if
you fall out of a third floor window. I'm sure you aren't saying that
a bicycle helmet (or even a motorcycle helmet) will protect you
against that kind of impact. A car feels about 40gs of deceleration
when driven into a wall at 35mph. It uses about 1 m of crumple zone
to absorb that impact. A helmet doesn't give you more then a couple
cm. It seems to me that Boardman slowed down quite a bit in his skid
before hitting his head against the wall. I'm sure the helmet helped,
but it didn't perform any miracles.

There is another account of Casarteli's crash that implies a helmet
wouldn't have helped. Who knows?

If you feel more comfortable wearing a helmet, go ahead and wear a
helmet. What is the big deal?

--
David Steuber
The Interloper
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.

If you can't trust an anonymous person on the Internet, who can you trust?

David Steuber The Interloper

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:41:19 -0500, Bob Schwartz <bsch...@cray.com>
claimed or asked:

% If you simply *must* have at the helmet wars (and remember,
% they're totally, completely, utterly pointless, please
% consider abstaining) I have gone through the trouble of
% following up Garry's horribly cross-posted basenote while
% limiting the distribution to the proper newsgroup: 'rec.bicycles.soc'
%
% Those of you that insist on wallowing in helmet threads are
% urged to follow up that post rather than Garry's original
% post, thus sparing us the re-re-re-re-re-hashing of what
% has already gone countless times before. Garry's complete
% text is there for attribution.

I only follow the r.b.m group. It is all I have time for. So, if you
don't mind, or even if you do, I followed up to r.b.m as well as
r.b.s. I dropped the other two. The original subject should probably
have been posted to just r.b.r because it was about a racing incident.
Racing has got to be more hazardous than regular riding because you
are pushing the edge of the envelope.

In any case, I've said all I have to say for this particular thread,
unless someone posts a compelling response.

David Martin

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Garry Lee wrote:
>
> Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,

> hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
> about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
> fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
> afforded excellent protection. He died.
>
> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
> wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
> THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
> wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>
> THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
> so different.
>
> Open your minds, but not your heads.

Garry, as a doctor you should be well aware that the cheekbone is not on
the top of the head.

Both Casartelli and Boardman hit their faces, not the tops of their
heads.

Casartelli crashed descending in the Alps at something much higher than
20 mph.

Boardman hit the graound then rolled into the wall at something much
less than 35 mph.

You really don't need to distort the facts do you?

All the pictures I have seen show very little damage to the top of
Chris's helmet.

Why don't you write to the parents of Laura and tell them that their
daughter should have been wearing a helmet to watch a bike race.

ANd how is this relevant to those of us who don't cycle in close packs
at 30mph, don't descend alpine passes with a priority on speed, but
instead just pootle along, enjoying life and watching the road.

WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
he would still be fine.

Why did Casartelli crash? He was going too fast round a corner, ran wide
and hit the block on the edge.
He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
riding.

If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
helmet wearing then please
1) get all the facts
2) get them right
3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
who generally doesn't fall off.

If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
candidate).

To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
and motor racing helmets in the family car?

..d

David Martin

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Perry wrote:
> Sometimes we are placed in
> circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
> control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
> riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
> stupid.

I'm not sure how you get to this point. Cars are very predictable. Only
in the most exceptional circumstances will you accidentally be knocked
off if you are riding with a reasonable degree of roadcraft. Of course
all bets are off if they are trying to run you down.
Pedestrians on the other hand are well worth avoiding.

> Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
> insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.

12 years of hassle between hospitalisable accidents on average?
65 lifetimes of hassle between deaths?
insignificant discomfort? I suffer when riding up steep hills towing the
trailer. Airflow doesn't exist. Helmets boil the head. In order to get
any cooling whilst wearing a helmet you have to get over a certain
threshold speed. In order to get some cooling without you can use
convection. ANd the threshold for airflow induced cooling is lower.

I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
ones hardly at all.

..d

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <35b04b63...@news.elnet.com>,

I hadn't thought of that. Imagination _can_ be a pretty wild thing.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Asbjørn Bjørnstad

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> writes:

> WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
> hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
> he would still be fine.

What I want to know is what happened to the poor cat? And would a
helmet with a visor have helped it?
--
[asbjxrn] [lLd25z*%ds1-100/sLlSdI%ds2-O/sSl1l2*PlL0<l]sl
21172310731916131628237117 3237142523312SSSLllxq

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ok07a$4n...@dragon.sk.sympatico.ca>,

"Perry" <jollyr...@gib.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes we are placed in circumstances where death is unavoidable.
> But in the mean time, we have control over the risks we face in life.
> Choosing not to wear a helmet when riding, especially with uncontrollable
> variables such as cars, is insane or stupid. Any increase in the odds of

> surviving an accident is worth the insignificant cost and discomfort of a
> helemt.

Let me make some comments on this section of your message Perry:

When was the last time you had a choice whether to be placed in a
position where death was unavoidable? Looking back I can't see a
single form I filled out that questioned whether I wanted to be
exposed to certain death or not.

But, that aside, if you think that cars are an uncontrolled variable
why would you go out into traffic at all? About half of all the fatalities
ARE NOT attributable to head injuries. So why would you expose yourself
to this unsufferable danger in the first place? For that matter,
why would you drive in such danger?

And finally, what leads you to think that a helmet increases your
odds in any manner at all? The landmark statistics such as those from
Australia and New Zealand and studies like Scuffham's report and
Hillman Meyer's study, all tell us that if helmets have any effect
at all for the average cyclist it is below the statistical noise.

And for Giles Morris' benefit:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life
above and beyond the call of duty. In route to assist another unit that was
engaged with the enemy, Company A came under intense enemy fire and the lead
man was killed instantly. Sgt. Baker immediately moved to the head of the
column and together with another soldier knocked out 2 enemy bunkers. When
his comrade was mortally wounded, Sgt. Baker, spotting 4 Viet Cong snipers,
killed all of them, evacuated the fallen soldier and returned to lead
repeated assaults against the enemy positions, killing several more Viet
Cong. Moving to attack 2 additional enemy bunkers, he and another soldier
drew intense enemy fire and Sgt. Baker was blown from his feet by an enemy
grenade. He quickly recovered and singlehandedly destroyed 1 bunker before
the other soldier was wounded. Seizing his fallen comrade's machine gun, Sgt.
Baker charged through the deadly fusillade to silence the other bunker. He
evacuated his comrade, replenished his ammunition and returned to the
forefront to brave the enemy fire and continue the fight. When the forward
element was ordered to withdraw, he carried 1 wounded man to the rear. As he
returned to evacuate another soldier, he was taken under fire by snipers, but
raced beyond the friendly troops to attack and kill the snipers. After
evacuating the wounded man, he returned to cover the deployment of the unit.
His ammunition now exhausted, he dragged 2 more of his fallen comrades to the
rear. Sgt. Baker's selfless heroism, indomitable fighting spirit, and
extraordinary gallantry were directly responsible for saving the lives of
several of his comrades, and inflicting serious damage on the enemy. His acts
were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect
great credit upon himself and the armed forces of his country.

This is the citation used by the Congress of the United States of America
to award, via the President's hand, the Congressional Medal of Honor to
John F. Baker, Jr.

These are the people that helmet zealots feel they should be able to
order about. Wear a helmet or you're stupid. Right. No one else has
the sense to know a f&&king thing.

Makes you feel bad to think about how much you owe others Giles? So
you can call that wrapping one's self in the flag? Freedom has a
cost and too many people are only too willing to throw away those hard
earned freedoms for others.

BiciItalia

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
gary Lee wrote-"Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into
a bollard, etc....."


The point is not helmets and their ability to reduce injuries but being TOLD to
wear one by government-another errosion of personal liberty-maybe that doesn't
bother you in the UK/Ireland, but it bugs americans a lot......
G

David Martin

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> writes:
>
> > WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
> > hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
> > he would still be fine.
>
> What I want to know is what happened to the poor cat? And would a
> helmet with a visor have helped it?

Not content with Boardman, this pesk cat has been chasing Cippolini 'the
Skittle' throughout the whole of the tour so far.. Why else would he
keep falling off so much?

(eller kanskje det var et kattoeye, ikke en katt...)

..d

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <35ADC348...@biotek.uio.no>,

David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Casartelli crashed descending in the Alps at something much higher than
>20 mph.

Pyrenees.

>WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
>hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
>he would still be fine.
>

>Why did Casartelli crash? He was going too fast round a corner, ran wide
>and hit the block on the edge.
>He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
>riding.

The peloton reported instances of elbowing and jostling on the descent.

>
>If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
>helmet wearing then please
>1) get all the facts
>2) get them right
>3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
>who generally doesn't fall off.
>

The fact is, you expose yourself to risk when you get out of bed. People
get confused when they see pros doing something similar to what they do.
You cannot compare incidents in the peloton to amateur riding anymore
than you can compare driving your sedan to stock car racing or McDonald's
to Haut Cuisine. Helmets are nice to have if you wish their protection.
They will not save your face or neck. Making rash judgements about their
mandatory use will not improve their usage. It is an optional thing.

I where a helmet when I ride on roads with moderate to heavy traffic, or
where the shoulders have gravel. I do not where one on deserted farm
roads or when climbing in the Rockies (I like my brains rare, not medium
welldone). Descending a pass where Winnebagos come lumbering up and down
causing all sort of dificulty, I wear one. I have yet to see my life
saved by a helmet and I am going to do my best to keep it that way.

>If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
>constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
>can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
>candidate).
>
>To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
>protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
>point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
>and motor racing helmets in the family car?

And it comes down to this: riders like Cippo, Zuelle, Boardman, Zabel,
Moncassin, Svorada... should where them considering the times they visit
the road up close and personal. Riders like Virenque and Pantani,
probably not. Ullrich should wear steel armor and have his bike equipped
with airbags when he descends.

If you feel you are better off, wear a helmet. If it bothers you, don't.
Common sense keeps us alive. There is no set rule that will save us.

>
>..d

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ol37l$has$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

I just read what I wrote this morning and wonder whether I may have
sustained a brain injury sometime based on my use of "where". Doctor
help me!

> >>
>>..d
>
>

David Cásseres

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <35ad1017....@news.mindspring.com>,
cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

>Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>>Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,

>>hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
>>about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
>>fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
>>afforded excellent protection. He died.
>>
>>Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
>>wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
>>THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
>>wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>>

>>...


>
>It's no use. The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>talk about.........
>
>1. Wearing Helmets in your car.
>2. How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>helped by the helmet?
>3. How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>a helmet
>4. Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>5. Is OJ innocent.


Yes, I think you've got them figured out about right. However, the story
about Casarteli is not the one I've read: that the impact was to his face,
not the top of his head, and the medical opinion was that a helmet would
not have helped him.

--


David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Chuck Fry

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
thread... but here goes.

In article <35ADC5EC...@biotek.uio.no>,


David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
>you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
>you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
>will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
>ones hardly at all.

Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is
temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.

It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
avoidable injury.
-- Chuck
--
Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
chu...@chucko.com (text only please), chuc...@home.com (MIME enabled),
chu...@gateway.idiom.com (SPAM ONLY)

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,

chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.

What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.

Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.

> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.

Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
a shower?

And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
injury?

Joe Balenzano

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:28:01 GMT, cardone!@mindspring.com (Bob
Cardone) wrote:

>
>It's no use. The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>talk about.........
>
>1. Wearing Helmets in your car.
>2. How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>helped by the helmet?
>3. How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>a helmet
>4. Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>5. Is OJ innocent.
>
>

><G>
>
>
>Bob Cardone

You forgot to add if JFK was wearing a helmet, he would be alive today
and on Larry King Live discussing the sexual perversions of our
presidents, past and present.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to : Jo...@ntplx.net

Dave Rinneman

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Garry Lee wrote:
>

zzz................

> Open your minds, but not your heads.

Garry, check your newsreader preferences. I'm assuming that you also
wanted to cross-post this to alt.philosophy.debate, but it must have
been cut off. Perhaps your newsreader limits cross-posting to four
groups maximum, I'd check into this. If not, next time please try to add
in alt.usenet.kooks , alt.fan.banacek and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose as
well. These are discussions that the usenet community simply Must hear.

Wayne Pein

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Chuck Fry wrote:

> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
>
> thread... but here goes.

> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a


> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my

> chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is


> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>

> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.
>

If you knew how to ride a bike properly, you wouldn't havebeen within a
doors width of the parked cars in the first place.
Basic rookie mistake you made.

Wayne


dha...@iname.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,

chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
> thread... but here goes.
>
> In article <35ADC5EC...@biotek.uio.no>,
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> >I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
> >you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
> >you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
> >will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
> >ones hardly at all.
>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is
> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>
> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.
> -- Chuck

avoidable ? do you mean like getting doored while passing too closely
to parked cars ?

--
--dph.

Howard Gutnick

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
This pro/anti helmet argument/debate is really becoming counterproductive
and just cluttering the ng. Those who are pro will continue to be pro (I am
pro) and those anti will continue to be anti. I don't think anyone's mind
will be changed. I hope those who are anti always stay upright and not have
to tempt the fate that they may be wrong and that a helmet does actually
protect.

When I see a post or new thread that is related to the topic, I have been
marking it as read and moving on. Let's officially declare this thread as
dead and move on.

Howard
--
Howard Gutnick
hgut...@series2000.com
www.earaces.com


Clovis Lark wrote in message <6ol7ro$hv5$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...


>In article <6ol37l$has$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>>In article <35ADC348...@biotek.uio.no>,

Thomas Ahart

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

David Martin wrote:

> Garry Lee wrote:
> >
> > Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF

<snip>

> > Chris Boardman crashed

<snip>

> > THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
> > so different.
> >

> > Open your minds, but not your heads.
>

> Garry, as a doctor you should be well aware

<snip>

> He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
> riding.
>

> If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
> helmet wearing then please
> 1) get all the facts
> 2) get them right
> 3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
> who generally doesn't fall off.
>

> If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
> constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
> can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
> candidate).
>
> To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
> protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
> point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
> and motor racing helmets in the family car?
>

> ..d

Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same. In a car,
seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives. People who want to
survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices. It's
proven.

The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts". Law enforcement
professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts. Independent testing
organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know accident
survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know people that have
died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

But, they are probably wrong. After all, they didn't ask you for your opinion
on the matter, and that's what really counts, right?


Tom

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Thomas Ahart <aha...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu> wrote:


They won't like your response Tom, it makes too much sense. :)


Bob Cardone

Chuck Fry

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...

In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


<tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>

>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.

>> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>

>Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.

Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

And while this might affect my decision on a hot day, it isn't a factor
in cooler weather.

>> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.
>

>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>a shower?

Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>injury?

Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course. Doesn't
everyone?

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>>
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>
>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>

>> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>
>Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>


What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
Stroke? You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????

Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
cooler than with no helmet.

>> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.
>
>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>a shower?
>

>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>injury?
>


You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
don't think so!

Bob

Pete

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
<why am I doing this?>
--
p...@visi.net
Thomas Ahart wrote in message
<35AE5B0D...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu>...

>
>Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same. In a car,
>seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives. People who want to
>survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices. It's
>proven.
>

People who REALLY want to survive ride in such a manner as to reduce the
possibility of crashing.

>The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts". Law
enforcement
>professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts. Independent testing
>organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know accident
>survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know people that
have
>died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

The sticker on your new bike says "always wear your helmet" (as well as
"Don't ride at night")

Strange. Not one of those oft repeated statements mentions anything about
"ride safely".

(paraphrasing of sentiments expressed in here lately)
"I was riding next to a line of cars and got doored. Glad I was wearing my
helmet"
"I was crossing an intersection with my head down and got broadsided. Glad I
was wearing my helmet"
"I did an endo off a 15' cliff and hit a tree. Glad I was wearing my helmet"
"I was riding down the wrong side of the street and this car turned out in
front of me. Wish I had a helmet on"

DUH. If you ride in such a manner as to put yourself in those
situations...you NEED a helmet.

Pete

Pete

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

(groups trimmed to the necessary)
--
p...@visi.net
Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>>> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>>> avoidable injury.
>>
>>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>>a shower?
>>
>>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>>injury?
>>
>
>
>You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
>insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
>have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
>I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
>cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
>injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
>own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
>us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
>and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
>don't think so!
>
>Bob

Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.
....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
better than to go upstairs.
....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day
....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
times a week.
....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.
....or ride a motorcycle. Insanity. Only Hell's Angels do that. And we all
know how crazy they are.
....or ride a bicycle. After all...if you need to wear a helmet to do it, it
MUST be dangerous

Lets all just sit home in front of the TV. At least THATS not dangerous. Oh
wait.....TV causes violence in kids.


How far down that road do you want to go, Bob?

Pete

Chuck Fry

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6oln3i$h3i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dha...@iname.com> wrote:
>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
>> thread... but here goes.

And I'm still regretting it, but stupidly continuing to follow it up...

>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my

>> chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is


>> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>>

>> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.

>> -- Chuck
>
>avoidable ? do you mean like getting doored while passing too closely
>to parked cars ?

Touche'.

Would it do me any good to point out that this happened 24-1/2 years
ago, when I was a high school student, and decent bike helmets (let
alone mandatory helmet laws) did not exist?

People make mistakes, and accidents do happen despite our best efforts.
The human head is a fragile thing and IMHO worth protecting, even if
that protection is less than perfect. I feel a helmet improves my odds
of avoiding head injuries. That's why I always wear one when riding.

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:

When you examine "accidents" you will always run into mental lapses
and just plain stupid moves by people. If people didn't do dumb
things, we wouldn't need ambulances and ERs and all the rest. I am a
Pilot and have been reading aviation case histories for years and
years. Almost everyone I read including some of the Major Airlines
Mishaps, I say to myself, " That certainly was a stupid thing for the
Pilot to do". But, we all make mistakes, even the most highly
trained. So a partial solution is to design backup systems. Something
to save your butt when you screw up. When I started flying I did
everything to minimize my risks. Always use a check list ( people
crash because they didn't use a check list), don't fly in bad weather
( people crash in weather realted accidents) etc...

A great " backup system" for a cyclist to help minimize risk is to
take a course such as Effective Cycling . Another "backup system" is a
Helmet. It is not meant to take the place of careful riding, it is an
adjunct to careful riding. You don't take a course in Pilot Safety
and then because you completed that course start having a couple of
Martinis before you fly and not buckle your seat belt. Wearing your
seatbelt in an aircraft will not guarantee safety if the pilot is
drunk, but if he crash lands, it might save you butt.

In the same way, all the imperfect people that ride bicycles, and make
mistakes on them , might be helped when their helmet hits that tree
instead of their skull, when they do something stupid on the bike.
Remember all us humans seem to do something Stupid from time to time
( Unless of course you are perfect :) ) . The Helmet is not a
guarantee of safety, the only thing that is guaranteed in life, is
that someday you will die. I'm just not in a big hurry to get there,
so I will continue to utilize my backup system and wear my helmet.

Bob Cardone


Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:

>
>(groups trimmed to the necessary)
>--
>p...@visi.net
>Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>

>>>> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>>>> avoidable injury.
>>>

>>>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>>>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>>>a shower?
>>>
>>>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>>>injury?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
>>insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
>>have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
>>I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
>>cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
>>injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
>>own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
>>us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
>>and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
>>don't think so!
>>
>>Bob
>
>Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.


True, that's why I don't eat red Meat. That doesn't even address the
problem of Ecoli.


>....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
>better than to go upstairs.

If Grandma and ridden her bike 10-15 miles a day, she wouldn't have
problems with the stairs. I am a grandfather with 4 grandchildren and
I run up and down the stairs in my house ( cheaper than a stair
climber machine)


>....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day

I drink at least 8. Forestalls Kidney problems.

>....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
>times a week.


Bunk.. All you need is 65-80% of your max heart rate 3-4 times a week
to stay in shape.


>....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.

After I broke my collar bone, I quit skiing.


>....or ride a motorcycle. Insanity. Only Hell's Angels do that. And we all
>know how crazy they are.


In Atlanta where I live, It is dangerous. I have several friends that
road motorcycles until they moved to Atlanta. They sold them shortly
after.


>....or ride a bicycle. After all...if you need to wear a helmet to do it, it
>MUST be dangerous

Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, talking a polio shot, eating high
fiber diet. The name of the game is to minimize risk in whatever you
are doing. Life is dangerous. Everything that lives will die someday.
You just have to minimize your risks to stall that day off.


>
>Lets all just sit home in front of the TV. At least THATS not dangerous. Oh
>wait.....TV causes violence in kids.


TV is horrible.... I believe it does cause violent behaviour in kids.
Look at all the shootings in school now.

>
>
>How far down that road do you want to go, Bob?
>
>Pete
>
>

Actually, tonight I am riding down the road about 27 miles on my bike
with my helmet on. I am going to practise my effective cycling
principles once again including wearing a helmet.

Then I am going to go home and have a dinner with Brown rice, broiled
salmon and a salad. . Real Healthy Stuff.

Bob Cardone

Jim West

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:28:01 GMT, cardone!@mindspring.com (Bob
>Cardone) wrote:
>
>>
>>It's no use. The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>>talk about.........
>>
>>1. Wearing Helmets in your car.
>>2. How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>>helped by the helmet?
>>3. How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>>a helmet
>>4. Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>>5. Is OJ innocent.


You forgot "Just never make a mistake or have an accident like little 'ol
superhuman me." (Appeared just few posts after this one on my server. What
an incrdible noncoincidence.)

jw
--
Jim West jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Associate Professor jw...@master.ceat.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Fyodor Dostoyfredsky

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Howard Gutnick (hgut...@series2000.com) wrote:
: This pro/anti helmet argument/debate is really becoming counterproductive

: and just cluttering the ng. Those who are pro will continue to be pro (I am
: pro) and those anti will continue to be anti. I don't think anyone's mind
: will be changed.

Which is more of a malaise -

1) a debate on helmets
2) a debate on abortion


Henry
fre...@connectnet.com

Eric Bazan

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Is this the best you people can do - argue endlessly
about helmets?

What a bunch of weenies.


Andreas Peeck

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

> Casarteli ...


> hitting it with the top of his unprotected head.

This is a lie, it was his face (where no (bike)helmet would protect
him), not the top.



> He was travelling at
> about 20mph at the time, it's estimated.

Estimated! It was downhill, why only 20mph? Why not 40 or 50mph?

> ... an injury against which a helmet would have
> afforded excellent protection.

This is a lie. No serious man would think, a (bike)helmet could help you
in such a Situation.

>He died.

That is true. Very sad.
But the fact, that you want to exploit his death for your religious war,
shows, that you are not a god man.

> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph

Estimated? Or wasn´t it at 30mph?

> and slid into a stone
> wall,

Wall! No corner, no edge, like in Casartellis case.

> head first.

Did you see this? I saw him going with his legs first.
I suppose, his Head injury came from a collision with the Street.

Without helmet he possibly would not have touched the Street with his
head (you know, the helmet makes your head bigger, then your instinkt
knows).
It is even possible that he would have been more concentrated without
the helmet (you know, the heat under the helmet is not good for your
brain).
But we don´t know. We have no second world to test ist.

> THe crashes are almost identical,

No, they are not.


greetings to the other readers
AP

Roger Marquis

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In rec.bicycles.racing Chuck Fry <chu...@best.com> wrote:
>The human head is a fragile thing and IMHO worth protecting, even if
>that protection is less than perfect. I feel a helmet improves my odds
>of avoiding head injuries. That's why I always wear one when riding.

Nobody can argue with that Chuck. Wear whatever makes you comfortable,
it's your choice, it's your right and it's nobody else's business
really.

Helmet nazi's on the other hand, take it upon themselves to harass
*other* cyclists. If the helmet nazi's in this country would mind
their own business, as they do everywhere else in the world, and let
people decide for themselves this wouldn't even be an issue.

Roger Marquis

Pete

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae69f1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:
>

>>Strange. Not one of those oft repeated statements mentions anything about
>>"ride safely".
>>
>

>When you examine "accidents" you will always run into mental lapses
>and just plain stupid moves by people. If people didn't do dumb
>things, we wouldn't need ambulances and ERs and all the rest. I am a
>Pilot and have been reading aviation case histories for years and
>years. Almost everyone I read including some of the Major Airlines
>Mishaps, I say to myself, " That certainly was a stupid thing for the
>Pilot to do". But, we all make mistakes, even the most highly
>trained. So a partial solution is to design backup systems. Something
>to save your butt when you screw up. When I started flying I did
>everything to minimize my risks. Always use a check list ( people
>crash because they didn't use a check list), don't fly in bad weather
>( people crash in weather realted accidents) etc...
>

As a retired USAF ground crew, I saw LOTS of stupid accidents. Pilots and
maintainers. "He did WHAT?"

>A great " backup system" for a cyclist to help minimize risk is to
>take a course such as Effective Cycling . Another "backup system" is a
>Helmet. It is not meant to take the place of careful riding, it is an
>adjunct to careful riding. You don't take a course in Pilot Safety
>and then because you completed that course start having a couple of
>Martinis before you fly and not buckle your seat belt. Wearing your
>seatbelt in an aircraft will not guarantee safety if the pilot is
>drunk, but if he crash lands, it might save you butt.
>

And here's where you and I (mostly) agree. If you notice above and from the
past...my main complaint is NOT with people who wear helmets...its with
statements made by people and organizations that, through ommission or some
agenda, leave out riding safely.

One of my kids bikes has a sticker on it. "Don't ride at night". Nothing
else. No "Use a light at night"...or...."Ride safely at night" Just DON'T
DO IT. In my mind...thats not a far leap from "You *must* wear a helmet".
Granted, the bike companies are not in the business of instruction. But why
not? Picture this...Trek or Giant has a series of classes all around the
country. Kids get to use cool, kid size MTB's and maybe learn some stuff.
They (and parents) would lean a little more towards that company when
buying. (are you listening guys?)

The first and best 'backup system' is learning to ride safely and
effectively. Given the dismal state of cycling practices here and
abroad.....the best defense against injury is just that. Learning to ride
safely. Which does not necessarily = slowly. The very low rate of cycling
injuries, even with the crappy riding habits, seems to me to indicate that
if you ride effectively...your chances of being injured are much, much lower
than the already low average. Not zero, mind you...but better than just
about anything else around.

>In the same way, all the imperfect people that ride bicycles, and make
>mistakes on them , might be helped when their helmet hits that tree
>instead of their skull, when they do something stupid on the bike.
>Remember all us humans seem to do something Stupid from time to time
>( Unless of course you are perfect :) ) . The Helmet is not a
>guarantee of safety, the only thing that is guaranteed in life, is
>that someday you will die. I'm just not in a big hurry to get there,
>so I will continue to utilize my backup system and wear my helmet.

More power to you.

Pete
sometimes yes...sometimes no

Pete

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae6e91...@news.mindspring.com>...

>>Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.
>
>
>True, that's why I don't eat red Meat. That doesn't even address the
>problem of Ecoli.
>
>
>>....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
>>better than to go upstairs.
>
>If Grandma and ridden her bike 10-15 miles a day, she wouldn't have
>problems with the stairs. I am a grandfather with 4 grandchildren and
>I run up and down the stairs in my house ( cheaper than a stair
>climber machine)
>
>>....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day
>
>I drink at least 8. Forestalls Kidney problems.
>
>>....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
>>times a week.
>
>
>Bunk.. All you need is 65-80% of your max heart rate 3-4 times a week
>to stay in shape.


Yes, but someone else making the rules may subscribe to a different level.

>>....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.
>
>After I broke my collar bone, I quit skiing.
>

After I broke my leg, my mom said no more. Next winter I was back out there.

>TV is horrible.... I believe it does cause violent behaviour in kids.
>Look at all the shootings in school now.


Actually, no. If I'm not mistaken, shootings in schools have gone down over
the last decade. Its only publicized cause now its spread out into the
suburb and rural areas. When it was only in the inner city, no one took much
notice.

>Then I am going to go home and have a dinner with Brown rice, broiled
>salmon and a salad. . Real Healthy Stuff.


I hope you realize that most of my 'situations' were in jest. But once you
go down that slippery slope, you may end up in a completely different place
than you wanted to be.
If you start restricting health care based on not performing semi arbitrary
levels of activity..or witholding care from people who engage in activities
that are 'different', everyone loses.

Thank you, Bob, for increasing my insurance costs. Don't you know that the
longer people live, the more they'll cost eventually?

Pete
live long and prosper....

David Martin

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Chuck Fry wrote:

> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is
> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>

> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.


I'm a little unclear about this. How does a helmet stop you getting
doored?

Can I suggest that it is not the helmet that prevents the injuries, but
not being in door range. I know this may sound really off the wall to
some people, but not having the accident (for avoidable accidents like
running into parked cars, or such like) is a far better and cheaper
method of not having to pay for injuries.

Actually, I think I see. The car occupant who will otherwise open the
door decides that a helmet will damage their car whereas the naked head
won't, so stops from opening it...

Clear as mud.

..d

David Martin

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Bob Cardone wrote:
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke? You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????

Funny you should mention the army, an officer cadet died of heat stroke
at sandhurst a few days ago. It wasn't particularly hot either.

>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

You do of course have references for that assertion. If so I would love
to see them. (This is an honest request, not a debating ploy)

To be perfectly honest I do not beliee this one iota. It is a common
'factoid' but has not had much basis in science. (I'm interested in the
5-15km/h range, above that speed the helmet doesn't bother me much.

>
> >> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.

>

> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc...


The question is how does CHuck pay for my costs. I am not in the US but
in Europe. As far as I know there is no financial link between my
healthcare costs and US insurance companies.
Maybe you could enlighten me.

..d

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In article <35AE405C...@columbia.edu>,

Dave Rinneman <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Garry, check your newsreader preferences. I'm assuming that you also
> wanted to cross-post this to alt.philosophy.debate, but it must have
> been cut off. Perhaps your newsreader limits cross-posting to four
> groups maximum, I'd check into this. If not, next time please try to add
> in alt.usenet.kooks , alt.fan.banacek and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose as
> well. These are discussions that the usenet community simply Must hear.

Wait a minute: I may not agree with Garry's ideas but we have discussed
many issues with him. His beliefs are tightly held and are honestly
come by. And he cycles a great deal -- more than me and maybe more
than you.

Disagree with him if you want, but leave the ridicule for the idiots that
inhabit the net.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In article <35AE5B0D...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu>,

aha...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu wrote:
>
> Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same. In a car,
> seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives. People who want to
> survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices. It's
> proven.

1) I expect accidents all the time and take actions to prevent them.
2) Full model studies of bicycle helmets and several statistical
analysis of accident rates over the years show no change whatsoever
in the injury rates with and without helmets.
3) You say that helmet efficacy is proven -- where?

> The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts".

They also used to bleed people.

> Law enforcement professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts.

And an interesting thing was that while they were promoting helmet
laws in this state the Highway Patrol, which was appearing at every
helmet law hearing, were issuing their motorcycle patrolmen helmets
lined with _cork_ that were completely useless.

> Independent testing organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts".

Please give us more information on this. Do you mean those agencies that
quote the Riverview Study which was funded indirectly by Bell Sports and
claimed that 85% of all head injuries would be prevented by wearing a
helmet?

> People who know accident survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts".

I know many people who suffered head injuries in automobiles that might
very well have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Not one of them
insists that people wear a helmet in their car.

> People who know people that have died in accidents say: "I wish he was
> wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

And that therefore proves that helmets would have prevented the deaths?

> But, they are probably wrong. After all, they didn't ask you for your
> opinion on the matter, and that's what really counts, right?

At least I have bothered to study the matter before I tried the tear
jerking stories Tom. You have read a helmet ad and other stories funded
by helmet manufacturers. You seem convinced that helmets work. Fine
believe anything you want. But it ain't true.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In article <6olno3$hfo$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,

chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...
>
> In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>
> Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.

The studies have been cited here many times. Try "Trends in Cycle
Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use" by P.Scuffham, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, no.1, pp.1-9,1997

This is pretty much the landmark study since it was run by a strongly
pro-helmet group that checked their figures again and again trying
to find any errors and concluded that helmets have no effect for
general riding injuries.

> Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

I suppose the testimoney from thousands of cyclists is pretty much
worthless in that regard. Even if helmets didn't add to the problem
many cyclist strongly believe that they do. Even though I wear a helmet,
I have found that often while climbing on a hot windless day that I
cannot bear a helmet. I have had heat prostration in the past and
recognize the leading symptoms and am not about to take any chances.
In these cases, when I remove the helmet, the symptoms are immediately
lessened.

> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
>

> Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
> activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

You just don't get it do you? Riding in a car is TWICE as dangerous
as riding on a bicycle per hour of travel. Walking is FOUR TIMES
as dangerous.

Bicycling is the safest form of personal transport. It isn't dangerous.
Just riding in a car is more dangerous than just riding your bike.
Want the figures?

ESTIMATE OF FATAL RISK BY ACTIVITY>
Activity # Fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hours
-------- -----------------------------------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003>

Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., published in
Design News, 10-4-93

Using data from the Effective Cycling by John Forester, you can
calculate that if you are an experienced cyclist and follow the
proper rules of the road and are a defensive rider, you can at
least increase your safety by a factor of four or five.

That means that you stand about as much chance of dying from
cosmic rays as from riding a bicycle.

BICYCLING IS ONE OF THE SAFEST THINGS YOU CAN DO IN YOUR LIFE!

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>

> Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course. Doesn't
> everyone?

Excuse me Chuck, but you are completely wrong. Consider: thousands and
thousands of cyclists have their health greatly improved because of
regular and high quality exercise. Some very small number of these
cyclists are involved in serious accidents that require significant
medical expenses. What's the balance sheet? According to Hillman
Meyer in a study for the British Medical Association the balance is
struck at about 20 years of healthy life added for every one lost
due to accidents. In other words, Chuck, bicyclist cause insurance
costs to drop.

I'm sorry if I seem irritated at times, but we need to repeat these
posts many times per month and are always faced with the same
uneducated questions. While it is true that there are no dumb
questions, only dumb answers, it is trying when someone cannot
read the information that is already there if they take the trouble
to look.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In article <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>,
cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke? You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

What gives you to this bizarre idea? Much of the bodies heat is disipated
from your head. Heat rises even in your case. How can putting a thick
layer of insulating material over your head cause you to cool better
than without?

I expect that you believe the advertising of helmet manufacturers that
talk about "tests" but can't cite one published in a serious journal.

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>

> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain

> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!

Bob, it's plain that you don't understand economics very well. Medical
insurance expenses are controlled almost completely by the accident
rates of automobiles and the rates of heart disease in overweight,
unhealthy older individuals. The accident rates of bicycles have
nothing whatsoever to do with it.

David Martin

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Thomas Ahart wrote:

> The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts". Law enforcement
> professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts. Independent testing
> organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know accident
> survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts". People who know people that have


> died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

And medical statisticians and risk assessment professionals say what?
WHo has the best understanding of what goes on in a population and what
the real risks are?

Doctors in A&E see accidents and believe subconciously that everything
is just an accident waiting to happen.


Law enforcement professionals see accidents and believe that everything
is and accident waiting to happen.

ITO's need people to buy helmets and begin to believe their substandard
testing has something to do with the real world.

ANd people who know people who have had accidents tend to be somewhat
biased in their emotional response.

WHereas those who carry out a careful systematic study on the effects of
helmets on a population find very little effect, definitely not enough
to make it worthwhile insisting that everyone should wear a helmet, and
finding that for many people the cost of wearing a helmet (no, not the
price, the cost) exceeds the value. The cost benefit ratio goes the
wrong way.

Let everyone make up their own minds. I refuse to let some do-gooder
force me off my bike because they insist that I should wear a helmet
whilst climbing hills in 80+ degree heat at 4 mph. It is ridiculous.
The majority of accidents are easily avoided. Some others (but a tiny
proportion compared to the firast part) are avoidable with a bit more
skill and experience, and a vanishingly small proportion are
unavoidable.

One can alter ones own risk profile. I don't participate in mass start
races, or large group rides with lots of novice cyclists. I don't try to
'push my limits' on technical terrain off road. I ride with a suitable
degree of caution all year round and tend to not have near misses, let
alone collisions.
I have had a couple of involuntary dismounts. But those are predicatble
far enough in advance that one can fall safely. ( a second or so .. both
were due to not being able to release from new clipless pedals under
exceptional circumstances that in hindsight were avoidable, and will be
avoided in future)

For a transport cyclist, accidents are very very rare if they are riding
correctly. For a racing cyclist, or leisure cyclist well, you pick your
own risk.

..d

James D Annan

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Chuck Fry wrote:

>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my

> chances of avoiding another concussion. Discomfort from heat is


> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
>

> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.

If you are stupid enough to ride within a door's width of parked
cars, then don't expect me to pay for your medical expenses
when you suffer the obvious consequences, helmet or no helmet.

James
--
James Annan jdan(at)pol(dot)ac(dot)you-kay
Proudman Oceanographic Lab
Bidston, Merseyside, L43 7RA

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,


> chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>>
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>

>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

Now, Tom. Just a few days ago, under intense pressure, you stated that a
helmet *could* provide such protection.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

RayG...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
In article <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>,
cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >>
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke? You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.
>
> >> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
> >
> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
> >
>
> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!
>
> Bob

Jeez, you guys. Get a life!

Martin Newstead

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
I reckon 'The Cat' is the great cycling god who gets us all from time to
time. Maybe Chris and Cipo' failed to do enough winter training or didn't
get caught in the rain enough times in the spring.

Malcolm

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Pete <p...@visi.net> writes

>DUH. If you ride in such a manner as to put yourself in those
>situations...you NEED a helmet.

<Gonna comment and run..>

In 20 years of motorbiking I crashed a number of times, especially
during the first few years. I never hit anything, just lost wheel grip.

AT NO POINT WAS MY HELMET EVEN SCRATCHED! EVER! I used to replace it
every few years as I was led to believe that the plastics deteriorated
(probably a commercial claim by the manufacturers?). Hands, elbows and
pelvis are the bits which take the strain in a motorcycle crash.

Now I'm on a bicycle, I'm delighted to get rid of the crash hat. To the
people who claim that a bicycle crash is different from a M/C crash
because the centre of gravity is higher and therefore you're more likely
to go head-first over the bars, I say - "True, but only if you drive
into something head-on. And that's just poor driving isn't it?"

So if you're a bad driver, get a crash hat. Otherwise, anticipate the
road problems, throw away the helmet, and enjoy your biking!

--
Malcolm (Nevil's Host)
. ///|||\\\
. 0 0
. \_____/
. U


Jack Dingler

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Perry wrote:
>
> Tom Kunich is absolutely right. Casartelli's crash was at high speed and no
> helmet would have saved him. I was in Italy at the time, and initial footage
> from the scene of the accident was extremely gruesome. This differs from
> what you see in FCV Tour videotape for that year. I don't think I have ever
> been so shocked (there were millions of us watching that day, the telecast
> was stopped as soon as he was pronounced dead). Sometimes we are placed in
> circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
> control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
> riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
> stupid. Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
> insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.


Yes it's stupid. You got it. It's dumb, not to worry incessantly over
the 1% of head injury causes and ignore the 99%. After all that 99% is
stupid to worry about.

Check out this web page once in a while...
http://www.dallasnews.com/

Since this heat wave has begun, two helmeted cyclists in the area have
died from heat exposure. During the same period, no unhelmeted cyclists
have died. One of the cyclists who died, was a bike cop.

Before you started calling people stupid for understanding that there is
a down side to helmets, consider the data first.

I wear a helmet most of the time. I ride in the 100+f temperatures
everyday, so I'm somewhat acclimated to it. Still, I ride a fine line
between speed and heat. Today, I got dizzy for a moment, at the end of
a thirty mile ride, with a few hours of rock climbing. For just a
second, I lost control over my balance and found that my belly button
was riding on my brake hood. This was the only indication I had, that
the heat was getting to me. I got my bike back under control and didn't
crash. The thought of that near face plant, is frightening still. Even
now, I have no recollection of what really happened beyond the feeling
of weakness and the panic to regain control.

This begs some questions...
1. Would this have happened if the helmet hadn't been helping my head
retain heat?
2. I know, that had I gone down, I would've landed on my face. Would a
helmet have saved me from injuries?
3. Should I consider not wearing a helmet on dangerously hot days?

I'm considering number 3. I don't ride in the extremely unsafe
conditions that many other riders do. I don't crash a lot. I don't get
doored twice a week. I don't get hit by cars often. I don't do deep
steep descents at high speeds down twisty mountian slopes in the rain.
In fact, my cycling falls have been rare events and I've never hit my
head. I used to crash a lot on motorcycles, but still, I never
scratched a helmet then, either.

If a helmet is going to increase my odds of passing out, and crashing,
then why should I wear one?

Now I know, that some posters have insisted, the heat related
difficulties are a myth. That no one can die from heat exposure. I
don't know where they get there information from, but evidently, they've
led sheltered lives.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
Irving, Texas

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Chuck Fry wrote:
>
> Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...
>
> In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>
> Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.
>
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>
> Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

Tow helmeted local rides have died in the Dallas area since this heat
wave began. No unhelmeted cyclists have died. Though this sin't really
proof and the numbers don't mean much, it's the kind of math that seems
to impresses those with an MHL agenda.

> And while this might affect my decision on a hot day, it isn't a factor
> in cooler weather.

Okay! Great! I'll only use a helmet for five months of the year.

> >> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
>

> Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
> activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

I rarely drive these days. I've probably done more than you, to
minimize risks by enacting that change of lifestyle.

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>

> Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course. Doesn't
> everyone?

You haven't looked into medical expense statistics, have you? Search
the web, look around, learn about injuries, causes and costs. It's all
on online and easy to get to, if you can type a query string.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Chuck Fry wrote:

> Discomfort from heat is
> temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.

Cool! So I should expect the two helmeted local cyclists, who died from
heat exposure to come back to life?

That's great! Will you write their grieving families? I'm sure this
news will be of great comfort to them.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Bob Cardone wrote:
>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >>
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary. Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke? You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

I have never heard that before. Can you cite a few sources for this
data? It sounds like you just made it up.

> >> It's your head. So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
> >

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
> >
>

> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes, or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity? If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!
>
> Bob

There you go. Another excellent argument for car helmets. Thanks for
coming around on this one Bob. I agree, if someone get's a head injury
while in an auto accident, insurance shouldn't cover it. After all,
it's so easy to wear a helmet in a car. They even make car helmets
already. There's no reason not to do it. Unless a person is just
stupid. Right Bob! You're not stupid are you?

Jack Dingler

RipTide

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Jack Dingler wrote:

I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat build
up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the heat affects
of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation allows body heat to be
taken away.

I suspect the two deaths are more likely to be caused by dehydration rather than
heat stroke, though I am happy to be proved incorrect.

--
RipTide (no return email - too much spam)

All opinions are mine. Any resemblance to any other opinions,
living or dead, is purely coincidental
|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
______|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ (____-'___________________
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)


Dorre

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent." The logical
: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
: of all the other risks that remain unattended.

No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
action would be to wear the helmet in the car. Then, having attended
to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
smaller risks.
Depending on how and where you ride, helmets when cycling might
also be worthwhile. But it's illogical to ignore large risks when
they could easily be prevented with a little time and effort, and
instead spend that time and effort on something with lower risks.

However, surely you'll
: agree that we have to take some precautions in our daily lives, and it
: is in large part our own personal responsibility to choose which
: precautions these will be. How do we make these choices? We
: make them case by case, situation by situation, based on various
: irrational and rational factors which vary from person to person.
: You may protest, "But your decision to wear a helmet on your bike
: but not in your car or on your sailboat makes no sense!", but this
: is irrelevant and is not the basis for an argument against wearing
: helmets. People are irrational.


Maybe not that irrational. Imagine you had a money belt. Would
you use it for your wads of notes, or your loose change? Most
people would use it for the items they could least afford to loose.
In the same way, if the Government spent 95% of its safety
budjet on measures to protect the earth against an asteroid impact,
but did nothing about other more likely events - floods, global
warming, having standards so buildings didn't fall down in the
street or fixing dangerous road intersections, you'd think they
were nuts for spending all their efforts at preventing or mitigating
the low risks, instead of those which were more likely to happen.
In the case of helmets, it's not so much a case of irrationality,
but misunderstanding of the risks. People think (or have been led to
believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Why
else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?
In addition, the cost of wearing a helmet in a car has nothing
to do with the cost of the helmet itself, or the inconvenience. It
is the fear of looking silly.
If it weren't for this fear of looking silly, most people who
wear a helmet on a bike, but would benefit more from wearing one in
the car, would probably do the sensible thing and wear one for both.
And, of course, would no lonmger need to fall back on the excuse
of irrationality for explaining why they try to mitigate one risk,
but ignore a larger one, despite the prevention measures being
similar.
Dorre

Dave Bailey

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:

>Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
>: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
>: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
>: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent." The logical
>: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
>: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
>: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
>: of all the other risks that remain unattended.
>
> No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
> The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
> So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
>a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
>action would be to wear the helmet in the car. Then, having attended
>to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
>smaller risks.

I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
driver, of course, but this goes without saying). This is because
seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents. After
that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure. When
some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
do the job much better. There is no analogous argument against
wearing a helmet on a bike. Wearing a helmet is the *first*
physical safety measure of a cyclist. It is analogous to wearing
a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet. So please lay this
tired bullshit argument to rest.

>People think (or have been led to
>believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Why
>else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?

Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
the impact. That's my choice. Let me emphasize here that I
don't care if you don't wear a helmet. I'm not trying to convince
anybody to wear one. It just pisses me off to see such idiotic
arguments *against* wearing a helmet. If you don't want to
wear one, don't wear one, what do I care?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In article <35B2E439...@a.cinema.near.you>,

RipTide <pla...@a.cinema.near.you> wrote:
>
> I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat
> build up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the
> heat affects of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation
> allows body heat to be taken away.

Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are remembering
(or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell or Specialized. Both
have made the same sorts of stupid claims without any data to back it up.

Pete

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

--
p...@visi.net
Dave Bailey wrote in message <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:


>>Then, having attended
>>to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
>>smaller risks.
>
>I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
>So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
>Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
>consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
>driver, of course, but this goes without saying). This is because
>seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
>to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents. After
>that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure. When
>some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
>argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
>reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
>that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
>feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
>while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
>unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
>do the job much better. There is no analogous argument against
>wearing a helmet on a bike. Wearing a helmet is the *first*
>physical safety measure of a cyclist. It is analogous to wearing
>a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet. So please lay this
>tired bullshit argument to rest.

Your argument makes sense, except for the fact that, even with belts and
airbags, more people (numerically, and percentagewise) suffer head injuries
in cars crashes than in bike crashes.

Which thing should we be taking care of....the little one or the big one?

Pete
BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
safely.....not protective armor.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,

dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).

None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with air
bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a helmet.

As for proof: how were seat belts proven to prevent injuries in accidents?
On race courses. As were crash helmets. There is about the same evidence of
helmets working in cars as there is of helmets working for bicyclists.
Neither case is very strong.

> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
> the impact. That's my choice.

Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
it ain't.

Scott Chan

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
> Your argument makes sense, except for the fact that, even with belts and
> airbags, more people (numerically, and percentagewise) suffer head injuries
> in cars crashes than in bike crashes.
>
> Which thing should we be taking care of....the little one or the big one?
>
> Pete
> BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
> safely.....not protective armor.

Cars have many more protective devices than just seat belts and
air bags. Padded
interiors (pillars, steering wheels, dash), safety glass, etc.
have all improved survivability. Whack your head in a modern
car and you might still have some sense left. Whack your head in a '58
Chevy and the injuries will be more severe. Cyclists have had
no such innovations protecting our heads, except for helmets.

--
Scott

Dave Bailey

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
> dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
>> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
>> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
>> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
>> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).
>
>None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with air
>bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
>dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a helmet.

Even if true, that is irrelevant. The point is the *perceived*
extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
if they simply wear a seat belt.

>> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
>> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
>> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
>> the impact. That's my choice.
>
>Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
>it ain't.

My gosh, were you there when I crashed? Where did I hit my
head, and how hard? How did you conclude that, based on
your observation of my accidents, my helmet didn't make a
difference?

You've misunderstood my point, of course. I now understand that
this issue is deeply tied in to your ego and sense of self. To admit
that your position makes no sense would, for you, be tantamount
to admitting that you are a failure as a person. So I don't expect
much from you. I, on the other hand, could care less about this
whole thing. As I've said many times, it doesn't bother me that
you won't wear a helmet, because I think it's your business and
not mine. Likewise, my decision to wear a helmet is my business,
and not yours.

Clearly, you'll never get closure in this situation if I keep
following up to your posts. I'm debating doing so just to see
how long you'll go on repeating your tired arguments, sort of as
a combination practical joke and brilliant illustration of your
helplessness in this situation. But I'm getting tired, and my busy
social schedule is forcing me to spend less time that I'd like
on my precious rec.bicycles.racing. Just remember that you're
completely at my mercy here because you care too much.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
> >: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
> >: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
> >: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent." The logical
> >: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
> >: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
> >: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
> >: of all the other risks that remain unattended.
> >
> > No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
> > The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
> > So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
> >a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
> >action would be to wear the helmet in the car. Then, having attended

> >to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
> >smaller risks.
>
> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> driver, of course, but this goes without saying). This is because
> seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
> to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents. After
> that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure. When
> some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
> argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
> reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
> that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
> feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
> while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
> unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
> do the job much better. There is no analogous argument against
> wearing a helmet on a bike. Wearing a helmet is the *first*
> physical safety measure of a cyclist. It is analogous to wearing
> a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet. So please lay this
> tired bullshit argument to rest.

Hmmmm, I've already taken two major safety steps when I ride a bike.
First, I've almost halved my chance of head injury by cycling instead of
driving. Second, I practice safe cycling, to the best of my ability.
That evens out your tired argument that seatbelts and airbags are enough
protection that no more should be added. Your argument that seatbelts
protect against head injuries as well as a bike helmet is plain wrong
also. The most common form of deadly car accident is a side impact
collision. Seatbelts and airbags do little good, so essentially, you're
unprotected in a side impact collision. Since helmets for cars are
already being manufactured and may help in a side impact collision, why
not wear one? Do you prefer to be unprotected in a side impact
collision?

> >People think (or have been led to
> >believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is. Why
> >else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?
>

> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of

> the impact. That's my choice. Let me emphasize here that I
> don't care if you don't wear a helmet. I'm not trying to convince
> anybody to wear one. It just pisses me off to see such idiotic
> arguments *against* wearing a helmet. If you don't want to
> wear one, don't wear one, what do I care?

No, you've got it wrong. We're insisting that you should wear one when
driving. It's stupid not to. Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet while
driving is stupid.

What do you call a motorist who's too stupid to wear a car helmet? An
organ donor.

Jack Dingler

Robert Oliver

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
> I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat build
> up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the heat affects
> of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation allows body heat to be
> taken away.

Great, but they didn't do that study on me. I approve of helmet use, but
for me it is simply not an option on a hot day. Intense heat will build
up rapidly even at the very beginning of a ride. I can barely wear a
helmet in the winter. I hate hats for the most part--due to heat
buildup.

--

Steeltown: A Big Country web site
http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm

A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/

The Unofficial Wheel of Time Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3513/wot.htm

Robert Oliver

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
> BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
> safely.....not protective armor.

Well, that sounds good, and it is in fact a good thing, but riding
safely will not protect you from idiotic motorists. There seems to be
this theory going around that safe riding will prevent numerous
accidents, and somewhat negate the need for a helmet.

Most of my run-ins with cars are when I am safely following the rules of
the road 100% No matter how safe I am it often just doesn't help.

The only time I've ever been hit was when I was riding straight down a
road and a car did a running stop and slammed into me. Very little else
one could do to ride "safer." I did have a helmet on, but it had no
effect since I landed on my left arm (had a winter jacket on) and my
head probably never came more than 6 inches from the ground.

I guess my point is that neither helmets or safe riding are necessarily
enough. In the end idiots with cars can ruin your day no matter what
precautions you take. And cycling is definitely a dangerous activity,
since it involves riding around in close proximity to nuts in cars. (I
think the State of Maine actually TEACHES people to try and hit bikes).

Dorre

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:

# >> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
# >> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
# >> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
# >> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
# >> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).

# >None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with
air
# >bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
# >dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a
helmet.

# Even if true, that is irrelevant. The point is the *perceived*
# extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
# if they simply wear a seat belt.

Are you serious???

Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?

In this thread, only a couple of days ago, the idea of not paying
the medical expenses of unhelmeted cyclists was again raised because
they had "contributed" to their injuries by not wearing a helmet. Yet
all the while, seatbelted, unhelmeted motorists face a similar risk
every
hour they spend in their cars, but never, ever get accused of
"contributing" to their own injuries in the same way.

Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?
Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
instead? Despite the fact that it would be much better for their
health,
and the community as a whole, if they cycled?

As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
identical risk hardly ever hears it?

The actual risks (per hour of activity) are readily available on the
web
from such prestiguous organisations as Failure Associates (who, I
believe
may provide this info eg to insurance companies). They have also been
posted here many times.

I thought we were talking about what *logical* people (ie those with
enough sense to check out the true risks for themselves) should do, not
the typical auto driver!

But even motorists have to be educated at some time, if cycling is
to flourish and we are to encourage back to cycling those put off by the
focus of helmets for cyclists and the implied danger. Getting more
people
to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
cyclists. Isn't that what we all want?

Dorre

Dave Bailey

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
> Are you serious???
>
> Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?
[...]

> Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
>cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
>injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?
>Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
>instead? Despite the fact that it would be much better for their
>health, and the community as a whole, if they cycled?

> As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
>road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
>identical risk hardly ever hears it?

[...]


> But even motorists have to be educated at some time, if cycling is
>to flourish and we are to encourage back to cycling those put off by the
>focus of helmets for cyclists and the implied danger. Getting more
>people to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
>cyclists. Isn't that what we all want?

So you are not really against people wearing a helmet while riding
a bike. You're just a rabid pro-helmet activist who wants to see auto
drivers wearing helmets too. Well, fine. Here are my responses to
each of your sentences that ends in a question mark, in order:

No. I don't know. No. Not a question. Not a question. Maybe.

Kisses,

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

RipTide

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <35B2E439...@a.cinema.near.you>,
> RipTide <pla...@a.cinema.near.you> wrote:
> >
> > I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat
> > build up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the
> > heat affects of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation
> > allows body heat to be taken away.
>
> Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are remembering
> (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell or Specialized. Both
> have made the same sorts of stupid claims without any data to back it up.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
mention of it in the last quote) check out

http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html

I dont think this counts as advertorial

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Scott Chan wrote:
>
> Cars have many more protective devices than just seat belts and
> air bags. Padded interiors (pillars, steering wheels, dash), safety
> glass, etc. have all improved survivability. Whack your head in a
> modern car and you might still have some sense left. Whack your head
> in a '58 Chevy and the injuries will be more severe. Cyclists have
> had no such innovations protecting our heads, except for helmets.

Excuse me for being irritated Scott, but can't you read? It doesn't
make a wit of difference what you are driving. When you drive you have
a statistically known chance of having a head injury and that
chance is twice that of a bicyclist.

And as for the year of the car making a difference -- give me a brake.
Just try reading the accident statistics for the last 30 years.
Shheesh!

Look, you AREN'T a bad guy for wearing a helmet. It just ain't going
to save your life if you do something stupid. Comprende'?

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
> > dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> >> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> >> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> >> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> >> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).
> >
> >None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with
> >air bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance
> >of dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a
> > helmet.
>
> Even if true, that is irrelevant. The point is the *perceived*
> extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
> if they simply wear a seat belt.

OK, let's get this straight. It doesn't really matter if you are safer
riding your bicycle without a helmet than you are driving your car
with it's safety equipment. All that matters is your perceived danger.

You are right, your busy social schedule is far more important. I'm
sure that the perceived danger of this subject is more than you can
take.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
RipTide wrote:

>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are
> > remembering (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell
> > or Specialized. Both have made the same sorts of stupid claims
> > without any data to back it up.
> >
> Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
> mention of it in the last quote) check out
>
> http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html
>
> I dont think this counts as advertorial

Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

For one thing, I don't think that many people who ride at 20 mph
complain about the heat. You can see the heat complaints here often
and they always refer to climbing in the sun at low speeds. I know
that I tried it and was forced to remove my helmet on at least one
occasion and removal of the helmet caused IMMEDIATE relief.

Judging by the fact that the heat problem is a constant complaint
by riders I defy researchers to use more realistic experiments.

Dave Bailey

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Jack Dingler <jdin...@onramp.net> wrote:

>The most common form of deadly car accident is a side impact
>collision. Seatbelts and airbags do little good, so essentially, you're
>unprotected in a side impact collision. Since helmets for cars are
>already being manufactured and may help in a side impact collision, why
>not wear one? Do you prefer to be unprotected in a side impact
>collision?

Side impact collisions are more dangerous because people wear
seat belts and are thus more likely to survive a head-on collision
which they otherwise would not survive.

>No, you've got it wrong. We're insisting that you should wear one when
>driving. It's stupid not to. Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet while
>driving is stupid.

Do you wear a helmet while driving?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Dave Bailey

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>OK, let's get this straight. It doesn't really matter if you are safer
>riding your bicycle without a helmet than you are driving your car
>with it's safety equipment. All that matters is your perceived danger.

Congratulations. Now you are beginning to understand the
nature the human mind. It doesn't make sense, does it? No
more so than your inability to let go of this thread. I bet you'll
be unable to stop yourself from following up to this post.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Garry Lee

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
helmet and a hat.


David Martin

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
> want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
> of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
I accept them fully.

Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed
of 20mph.

virtually irrelevant to a 20-30 ound overweight lump climbing a steep
hill at under 5 mph.

It would be interesting to determine for those riders their surface area
to volume ratio and their percent body fat. Most of this sort of rider
complain about the cold, most of the overweight unfit group (like me)
complain about the heat.

So yes there is a limited study that is not generally appliccable.

How about a study that is more relevant to real life for the mere
mortals?

any takers?

..d

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p1a3t$s5s$1...@news2.news.iol.ie>,

Well, I always wear a cycling cap since I'm bald. When I'm wearing a
helmet the cap is usually soaked with sweat, sometimes so badly that
it drips down into my eyes. When I'm not wearing a helmet the cap
is usually dry or at least not more than damp.

Isn't that proof that there is a significant difference in cooling
with and without a helmet?

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,

David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>
> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> I accept them fully.

David, I think that you misunderstand me. I do not think for a moment
that Bell Sports would generate phony information. But I do think and
I could probably provide strong evidence if pushed, that Bell Sports
carefully picks the projects that research helmet issues. And they
pick them carefully to avoid the real issues. That's marketing, not
lying.

Obviously the method and that conditions of that study left an awful lot
to be desired. For one thing they certainly didn't discuss the problem
of overheating with any real riders or they would have known that
riding a speed wasn't a problem.

I performed a Conconi test on a group of riders under a car port in
mid-winter here. Everyone was wearing their cycling togs. The temperature
was about 6C or 8C. Every single one of those tested was drenched in
sweat and dripping upon the ground at the end of the tests.

Everyone that rides a trainer in the winter time knows that without
airflow you overheat in very short order regardless of temperature.

Yet we see a 'study' of overheating that completely avoids the true
issues.

> Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed

> of 20mph. Virtually irrelevant to a 20-30 pound overweight lump climbing


> a steep hill at under 5 mph.

I think that the governing factor here is the windspeed and not the
age, weight or physical fitness of the testee.

> It would be interesting to determine for those riders their surface area
> to volume ratio and their percent body fat. Most of this sort of rider
> complain about the cold, most of the overweight unfit group (like me)
> complain about the heat.
>
> So yes there is a limited study that is not generally appliccable.

Again, windspeed is significant. Surface area to volume really doesn't
vary all that much for the vaste majority of riders. You don't see
someone 100 lb.s overweight cycling up Col du Tourmalet. Well, maybe
one of those German guys....

> How about a study that is more relevant to real life for the mere
> mortals?
>
> any takers?

Who supplies the funding?

Andrew Albright

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

I smell a treadmill.

Don't you guys have a tour to pay attention to?

And Tom, why haven't you pointed out Tchmil's good placings? Not bad in
the sprint for an old fart?

Andrew Albright

Bob Cardone

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

>I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
>without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
>helmet and a hat.
>

Watched the Tour last night on ESPN. Several riders claimed it was the
hotest temperature they had ever raced in. The Stage winner wore a
Helmet???????? Go figure.


<g>


Bob Cardone

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> I accept them fully.

David, I want to say something about this.

Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.

Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
print just about anything that comes in the door.

Then I picked up a periodical on educational psychology and about the
third article I read was a study that rated a series of serious
peer reviewed journals. This study demonstrated that even some of
the highest rated journals don't even follow their own guidelines for
testing the veracity of the data. Only 20% of the articles in some
2500 or so articles followed the journal guidelines for testing data.

The fact is that most of what passes for knowledge in the world today
is no more reliable than it was when the Popes allowed the world to
think that the world was flat.

And being published in a peer reviewed journal is about as much a
guarantee of correct procedures as if it were published in Playboy's
editorial column.

While I agree that there isn't a better way, the competition to earn
a living by doing something like editing a journal simply will not
result in quantifyably correct information and advances in knowledge
without personal integrity and that seems to be a commodity that is
terribly short supply in the world today.

Steve Lusky

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) responded to Dorre with a good
puzzle. He copied parts of Dorre's message which had seven
questions. At the very end he gave six responses in one line to each
of her "sentences that ends in a question mark":

> No. I don't know. No. Not a question. Not a question. Maybe.

Which of the seven questions did Dave not answer?

Dorre's first question:
> > Are you serious???

This is the first sentence that ends in a question mark. Is Dave
answering "No" to this? I submit that this is the question he
skipped. Given Dave's distorted reality, ending in three question
marks is not ending in one, so he must be reasoning that it does not
end in a question mark. However, No must be the answer anyway, as the
remaining answers imply.

Then the remaining six questions must be what our dauntless Dave must
have been replying to:

> > Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?

Dave: "No."
It is common among helmet zealots to ignore facts and denigrate education.

> > Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
> >cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
> >injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?

Dave: "I don't know."
Dave has no clue about bike safety nor risk compensation.

> >Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
> >instead?

Dave: "No."

> > ... Despite the fact that it would be much better for their


> >health, and the community as a whole, if they cycled?

Dave: "Not a question."
Obviously Dorre is extending the question above, so Dave implies his
answer is also No.

> > As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
> >road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
> >identical risk hardly ever hears it?

Dave: "Not a question."
Again Dorre extends a prior question, so Dave implies his answer is again No.

> ... Getting more


> >people to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
> >cyclists. Isn't that what we all want?

Dave: "Maybe."

Dave is not interested in improving cycling. Ding! Ding! Ding!
Dave is indeed not being serious.

> So you are not really against people wearing a helmet while riding
> a bike. You're just a rabid pro-helmet activist who wants to see auto
> drivers wearing helmets too.

No, Dave. Dorre wants people to be aware of risks, and to minimize
them. If you promote helmets for bicycling, you should also promote
them for car users given the comparable risks and benefits. Dorre
also promotes bicycle safety, for which helmets is at best a minor
factor. You deny the major factors, so you fall back on helmets.
Fine, that is your choice, but beware that you are an "accident"
waiting to happen. That you promote the same for others is to the
detriment of the health of bicyclists and bicycling.

In another of Dave's ripostes:


Clearly, you'll never get closure in this situation if I keep
following up to your posts. I'm debating doing so just to see
how long you'll go on repeating your tired arguments, sort of as
a combination practical joke and brilliant illustration of your
helplessness in this situation

Oh Dave, you flatter yourself with such inanity. Your brilliance, if
any, is in propagandizing for helmets. If helmet promoters spent half
their energy on bike safety, we would be well on the way to the
federal goal of doubling bicycling (and walking) transportation trips
with 10% fewer injuries, a 55% reduction in injury rate.


To readers interested in bicycling: Don't read this thread. Go for a
bike ride. Keep Effective Cycling principles in mind, and be
satisfied that your cycling is one of the most healthy lifetime
activities you can do.

Best wishes,
Steve


David Martin

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

ANd what about the rest of the riders?
Voigt wasn't wearing one, agnulotto was wearing a hat. Tyler Hamilton
got heat stroke. Was he wearing a helmet?
Cippolini (probably not the best example) also retired claiming the
heat. He was wearing an old style hairnet helmet.

And the average speed of the stage is something far in excess of the
speeds at which I climb hills when either towing my daughter in atrailer
or with my usual panniers etc on a heavy MTB on my commute.

I accept that helmets are no problem with heat *IF YOU ARE MOVING FAST
ENOUGH* which from my simple assessments would be something about
12-15mph minimum on the flat and faster up hills.

I am looking for a well ventilated (but not extortionately priced)
helmet so that I can participate in events where the organisers have
decided that helmets should be worn by all.

Any suggestions welcome.

..d

Barryt59

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
These seem to be two groups that will never either be reconciled or converted.
Why don't the nelmet and non-helmet people just agree to disagree and move on
to something else. Something more important. Like, what's the best topping
on pizza?
Barry Harmon

David Martin

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> >
> > Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> > I accept them fully.
>
> David, I want to say something about this.
>
> Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
> an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
> peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.
>
> Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
> Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
> and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
> reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
> generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
> print just about anything that comes in the door.
snip

> And being published in a peer reviewed journal is about as much a
> guarantee of correct procedures as if it were published in Playboy's
> editorial column.

I review papers for a particular journal. We do not print 'anything that
comes in the door'. The criteria are that the papers should reach an
acceptable level of scientific soundness and that they will be cited by
others than the original authors. So we reject outright the majority of
papers that come in to the journal. We accept those that are of a
suitable standard typically only after ensuring that the standard is
high enough (usually demanding improvements to the presentation and
subsequent experiments to close logical holes). The problem is in
attracting high quality papers, and getting rid of the dross without too
much of a load on the (voluntary) reviewers. It typically takes me at
least three working days to review a paper, more if I have to do
extensive reading etc. around it.

WHat is a problem is the tendency to 1) aim for the least publishable
unit, and 2) the pressure to have a long list of papers in ones resume
(which leads to 1).

The paper we discussed, I have actually read (I went to the library and
found it).
It is reasonably sound given the nature of the field. WHat is a problem
is that it is not relevant to the slow, unfit cyclists that we all claim
to be. And unfortunately some newspaper editors and journalists with a
scientific nous slightly lower than the average lab rat stretch its
relevance far beyond the bounds of credibility.

So yes I accept the work was done well. It may well have been done with
the aim of competition in mind, it certainly wasn't done with the
average transport cyclist in mind.

One can accept the results of a study but be critical about their
relevance.

..d

David Martin

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

> Again, windspeed is significant. Surface area to volume really doesn't
> vary all that much for the vaste majority of riders. You don't see
> someone 100 lb.s overweight cycling up Col du Tourmalet. Well, maybe
> one of those German guys....

Try weight to height as a first approximation. Someone like Pantani is
'Whippet thin' at around 56 kgs and 1.72 tall.

Take a quick approximation of the weight as a cylinder and you get about
20 which is a very high surface area to volume ratio.
Take someone like me and I have an equivalent ratio of over 26
Ullrich has a ratio of about 22
even the biggest guys in the peloton have ratios less than 23.5

It may make a difference as I have less area on which to disperse heat,
that area suffers from too much insulation, and the only reasonably fat
free part is my head. So I could put some insulation on that..

I think the speed is the most important factor though.
The others do contribute.

..d

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35b3c69e....@news.mindspring.com>,
dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:

>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>>Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
>>it ain't.
>
>My gosh, were you there when I crashed? Where did I hit my
>head, and how hard? How did you conclude that, based on
>your observation of my accidents, my helmet didn't make a
>difference?
>
>You've misunderstood my point, of course. I now understand that
>this issue is deeply tied in to your ego and sense of self. To admit
>that your position makes no sense would, for you, be tantamount
>to admitting that you are a failure as a person. So I don't expect
>much from you. I, on the other hand, could care less about this
>whole thing. As I've said many times, it doesn't bother me that
>you won't wear a helmet, because I think it's your business and
>not mine. Likewise, my decision to wear a helmet is my business,
>and not yours.

Oh, it's better than you think, Dave. Kunich *does* wear a helmet! It's
just that he doesn't think impure thoughts about it.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35B2B5...@onramp.net>, jdin...@onramp.net wrote:

>I wear a helmet most of the time. I ride in the 100+f temperatures
>everyday, so I'm somewhat acclimated to it. Still, I ride a fine line
>between speed and heat. Today, I got dizzy for a moment, at the end of
>a thirty mile ride, with a few hours of rock climbing. For just a
>second, I lost control over my balance and found that my belly button
>was riding on my brake hood. This was the only indication I had, that
>the heat was getting to me. I got my bike back under control and didn't
>crash. The thought of that near face plant, is frightening still. Even
>now, I have no recollection of what really happened beyond the feeling
>of weakness and the panic to regain control.
>
>This begs some questions...
>1. Would this have happened if the helmet hadn't been helping my head
>retain heat?

I'll refrain from giving your "my helmet almost killed me" story the
treatment that is usually given to "my helmet saved my life" stories. But
I will ask whether you're sure your head would have been significantly
cooler without a helmet, while in motion. My own experience is it makes
no difference until I stop.

>2. I know, that had I gone down, I would've landed on my face. Would a
>helmet have saved me from injuries?
>3. Should I consider not wearing a helmet on dangerously hot days?
>
>I'm considering number 3. I don't ride in the extremely unsafe
>conditions that many other riders do. I don't crash a lot. I don't get
>doored twice a week. I don't get hit by cars often. I don't do deep
>steep descents at high speeds down twisty mountian slopes in the rain.
>In fact, my cycling falls have been rare events and I've never hit my
>head. I used to crash a lot on motorcycles, but still, I never
>scratched a helmet then, either.
>
>If a helmet is going to increase my odds of passing out, and crashing,
>then why should I wear one?

I'm having a hard time imagining why you've worn one for this long. The
risk of being ticketed for violation of the helmet law is minimal, and
even if you were ticketed it seems like the price would be a small one to
pay for added comfort and safety.

>Now I know, that some posters have insisted, the heat related
>difficulties are a myth. That no one can die from heat exposure. I
>don't know where they get there information from, but evidently, they've
>led sheltered lives.

Don't know who you mean -- I've only seen posts like my own, which just
point out that *not everyone* is highly susceptible to heat.

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35B3AA32...@home.com>, Tom Kunich
<elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>RipTide wrote:
>>
>> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are
>> > remembering (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell
>> > or Specialized. Both have made the same sorts of stupid claims
>> > without any data to back it up.
>> >
>> Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
>> mention of it in the last quote) check out
>>
>> http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html
>>
>> I dont think this counts as advertorial
>

>Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
>want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
>of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

Actually, Tom, it's up to you to find out who funded the study before you
go around claiming to know the answer.

I think it's interesting that the guy who's always screaming "Read the
studies!" should also scream "That doesn't count!" when someone cites a
study he hasn't heard about.

>For one thing, I don't think that many people who ride at 20 mph
>complain about the heat. You can see the heat complaints here often
>and they always refer to climbing in the sun at low speeds. I know
>that I tried it and was forced to remove my helmet on at least one
>occasion and removal of the helmet caused IMMEDIATE relief.
>
>Judging by the fact that the heat problem is a constant complaint
>by riders I defy researchers to use more realistic experiments.

There ya go. Science a la Kunich.

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p26qv$ak5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
>> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
>> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>>

>> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
>> I accept them fully.
>

>David, I think that you misunderstand me. I do not think for a moment
>that Bell Sports would generate phony information. But I do think and
>I could probably provide strong evidence if pushed, that Bell Sports
>carefully picks the projects that research helmet issues. And they
>pick them carefully to avoid the real issues. That's marketing, not
>lying.

So far you haven't shown any evidence that Bell Sports had anything to do
with this study. So is the above statement marketing, or a lie?

David Casseres

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p28kb$d93$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
>> I accept them fully.
>

>David, I want to say something about this.
>
>Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
>an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
>peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.
>
>Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
>Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
>and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
>reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
>generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
>print just about anything that comes in the door.

[...and on and on like that]

I'll remember this the next time one of the anti-helmet ayatollahs screams
at me about how I have to read the studies before I can say anything about
helmets.

Avery Burdett

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) writes:
> Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>>I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
>>without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
>>helmet and a hat.
>>
>
> Watched the Tour last night on ESPN. Several riders claimed it was the
> hotest temperature they had ever raced in. The Stage winner wore a
> Helmet???????? Go figure.
>

Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets from
support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Avery Burdett

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

That is not the issue. The issue is helmet zealots trying to force helmets
on bareheaded cyclists, either through mandatory helmet legislation, club
rules, or promotion of helmets. When the campaigns cease, "helmet wars"
will go away. Unfortunately I doubt that they will. The world is full of
interfering busybodies.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <199807211455...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

barr...@aol.com (Barryt59) wrote:
> These seem to be two groups that will never either be reconciled or
converted.
> Why don't the nelmet and non-helmet people just agree to disagree and move on
> to something else. Something more important. Like, what's the best topping
> on pizza?

Well, I keep reading people writing that and wonder what you're talking
about. I don't scream at people riding down the street to "get their
helmets". I don't say that someone is stupid for not wearing a helmet.
I don't suggest that bicyclists without helmets that get into accidents
should have the safety net of public services withheld if they are injured.
I don't tell all and sundry that will listen that in order to ride a bicycle
they first need to buy a helmet. I don't preface all speeches about
cycling with a statement such as, "Get a helmet and always wear it." I
don't tell people who put in absurdly more mileage than I do, that I
think that they are crazy for not wearing a helmet. I don't suggest to
anyone that if they are wearing a helmet and are struck fall off head first
and hit a curb that they will be good as new if they are wearing a helmet.
I don't tell long boring stories about what a terrible accident I got into
and then tell everyone that now that I've seen the light and even though
in that terrible accident I didn't hit my head, I now will not ride without
a helmet. I don't expect miracles from helmets and I don't suggest that
others expect miracles.

But the helmet zealots have suggest every single one of these things.

I do wear a helmet. I don't think that it will have any significant
effect on a serious accident. And I do think that people who so strongly
believe in helmets that they must lie to all they meet about them deserve
to be shown for what they are.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <casseres-210...@cassda.apple.com>,

cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
> Actually, Tom, it's up to you to find out who funded the study before you
> go around claiming to know the answer.

Sure -- just show me the citation. In case you're too stupid to understand
it -- there was no citation of any study in the newspaper article quoted.
Only a discussion that suggested that one had been made.

So if you'll give me the citation I'll look it up. What is it?

> There ya go. Science a la Kunich.

I suggest that I at least know what to look for. You don't.

tku...@diabloresearch.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <casseres-210...@cassda.apple.com>,
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
> I'll remember this the next time one of the anti-helmet ayatollahs screams
> at me about how I have to read the studies before I can say anything about
> helmets.

David, I'd be surprised to find out that you could even find a
study to read. My take on it is that you don't even know how to
use a card file, let alone a search engine.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages