National Helmet Legislation Coming in '00!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Martha Stephenson

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
mste...@accd.edu
I have been riding for about 3 years, my husband about 20 years. I wear a
helmet on long rides, but around the neighborhood, I confess I don't wear
one! I find that in the Texas heat, it is so hot to wear a helmet. My
husband is of the old racing crowd who rode before helmets were required. He
tends not to wear one and when he does, he wears a hairnet. I am for wearing
helmets. I think it is a great idea, but does the government really need to
get in the issue? If motorcyle riders (Texas) can choose, why would it be
any different for bicyclists? The only place I know where we must wear
helmets is when we ride on a nearby miltary base. So if we fall, and hurt
out heads, we can't sue !!
"Jack Dingler" <jdin...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:38358920...@texas.net...
> Yep. If car helmets were required we could possibly save 2500 lives a
> year.
>
> It's too bad that bicycle helmets don't seem to save lives. They are
> great at mitigating minor injuries though!
>
> Jack Dingler
>
> chann...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is a wonderful idea. There are too
> > many crazy drivers out there. The protection of
> > a helmet is better than nothing!
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>

Chris Phillipo

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to

Martha Stephenson wrote:

> mste...@accd.edu
> I have been riding for about 3 years, my husband about 20 years. I wear a
> helmet on long rides, but around the neighborhood, I confess I don't wear
> one! I find that in the Texas heat, it is so hot to wear a helmet. My
> husband is of the old racing crowd who rode before helmets were required. He
> tends not to wear one and when he does, he wears a hairnet. I am for wearing
> helmets. I think it is a great idea, but does the government really need to
> get in the issue? If motorcyle riders (Texas) can choose, why would it be
> any different for bicyclists? The only place I know where we must wear
> helmets is when we ride on a nearby miltary base. So if we fall, and hurt
> out heads, we can't sue !!

I thought national laws don't apply to Texas :)
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Ride our island.
http://www.ramsays-online.com <-- (buy bike stuff here)
http://welcome.to/Cape.Breton

Limey

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
styrofoam cooler?

The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
they will want to be like you.

Why not set a GOOD example for them?

Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"

http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


rjk3

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
In article <GafZ4.27850$usz4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Mike
Cutts" <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote:
>Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the
police
>enforce it with instant fines.
>What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a
helmet and cycle
>deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.


Can you verify that? I keep seeing studies cited that claim to
find no difference in cyclists' injury rate before and after the
legislation. ;-)

RJK3

>I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off
road, once
>within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who
can thank
>helmet wearing for currently being alive.
>It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort
of thing,
>people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they
dont.
>
>--
>Michael Cutts
>Technical Admin
>** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>
>Limey wrote in message
<10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...

johnb913

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
Here in the good ole USA whenever the Federal or State
Governments start to push to enact mandatory helmet laws you can
be sure of one thing, the helmet manufacturers are the ones who
are at the forefront pushing for the laws to be passed. The
politicians who are trying to pass the laws don't give diddly
squat about your health or safety, that's all they care about is
having their pockets lined with campain contributions from the
manufacturers who stand to reap economic windfalls if their
agenda is passed.

As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.

Tom S

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
Go to http://deja.com and read the h*lm*t discussion threads in
the archives. You (plural, i.e. everyone) will most likely find
that what you were planning to say has been said several times
before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Sherman
1999 Blue RANS TAILWIND/63
2000 Red RANS ROCKET

.O __............O............
_\\__\_........._\\_\-%.......
(_)^ %(_).....(_)^(_)..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Cutts

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
enforce it with instant fines.
What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
helmet wearing for currently being alive.
It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.

--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **

Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
>Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>styrofoam cooler?
>
>The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
>that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
>adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
>time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
>they will want to be like you.
>
>Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>
>Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"
>
>http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm
>
>
>

Mike Cutts

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Yeah, you are right about that. Politicians in NZ are hard working,
conscientious types who only have the good of the country at heart:) (OK end
of political discussion - sorry but I just couldnt help myself)

--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **

johnb913 wrote in message <218d1719...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com>...

Brent A. Peterson

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
In article <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,

Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> styrofoam cooler?

Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.

Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam
of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
work to offset the styrofoam)


> Why not set a GOOD example for them?

Yes, how about seting an example riding is fun and safe. Not
something that is dangerous.

Where I live now there are alot of over
protective parents. The poor kids can only seem to ride if they
have on their helmets, ride on the sidewalk and the parent(s) are
present riding with them. that can't be much fun. The kids sorta
just trod along with the parents.

Where I grew up I still see kids riding without parents, no
helmets either. They seem to be having fun. The big difference
is the example and rules the parents set.

Which group do you think is more likely to produce life-long
cyclists? The group guarded by their parents through cycling or
the ones allowed to have fun with it on their own?

Mike Cutts

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
down today.
Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
tomorrow.
At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.

--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **

Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

Dorre

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Mike Cutts (mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz) wrote:
: Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police

: enforce it with instant fines.
: What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
: deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.

Cyclist head injuries in NZ, as in Aus, have declined
over the years. The problem, as is plainly evident from
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/nz.htm
is that the decline doesn't seem to be related to the change in
helmet wearing! The LTSA did some pretty extensive surveys of
helmet wearing in primary school children, secondary school children
and adults. They provided the data for me, along with numbers
of cyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries (NH) and numbers
admitted with limb fractures but no head injury (NL). Head injury
was defined as skull fracture, or intra-cranial (ie closed head)
injury, including concussion, brain damage or bleeding within the
skull.

The graph shows the percentage of adult cyclists wearing helmets
and 100*NH/(NH+L) ie the percentage of cyclists with head injury,
out of the total admitted with either head or limb injury.

If the change in head injury percentage were due to helmets,
you'd expect it to change with the change in helmet wearing.

But it doesn't. For example, adult helmet wearing (dashed
red line) increased dramatically with the law, but there's no change
whatsoever in the head injury percentage (solid red line) - it just
follows the same trend as that for primary school children, despite
the fact that the latter group had more than 80% helmet wearing
well before the law. In fact, the biggest wiggle in the graph of
head injury rate for primary school children happened in 1995
(after the law), when helmet wearing in this group didn't change
at all.

Based on the available data, it doesn't make sense to
believe that the increased helmet wearing 'caused' the reduction
in head injuries. How could it? Much of the decrease for adults
occured before the increase in helmet wearing!

Unfortunately, there seems to be a vested interest both in
Australia and NZ in trying to justify the helmet laws. So we
get statements like "Head injuries have fallen as helmet wearing
has increased", implying that the one has caused the other, even
though, according to the graph, this is highly unlikely.

: I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once


: within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
: helmet wearing for currently being alive.

The funny thing about all this is that, before helmets became
fashionable in the US and required by law in Aus and NZ, you
didn't hear about all these cyclists hitting their heads and
examination of the fatality rates certainly shows the risk of
death from head injury relative to the amount of cycling is
no lower with helmet laws than it was before the laws were
enacted.

There's also some research which shows that helmet wearers
seem to report hitting their heads a lot more often than non
wearers. When I lived in Scotland and used to ride in ice
and snow, I had the occasional skid, possibly hitting thigh
or shoulder, but not my head. I hypothesise that if I had
been wearing a helmet, I might have hit it, because it sticks
out a fair bit more than the head, and the addional weight may
also have an effect.

My guess is that a lot of "my helmet saved my life" stories
stem from the fact that all too many people have an exaggerated
faith in helmets. Perhaps they take more risks. Perhaps they
feel protected and so over ride the natural instinct to keep
the head away from a hard surface when falling. So, they hit
their head and conclude from the dent and their firm belief
that helmets are wonderfully efective that the helmet must have
saved their lives.

However, the reality is shown in the graph of helmet wearing
rates and hospital data. Rather than save lives, I suspect
helmets may possibly cost lives, because people have an exaggerated
faith in them and so take more risks. The only cycling fatality
in my city (for as long as I have data) was a death from head injury
despite wearing a helmet. Simple precautions such as looking carefully
when a cycleway crosses a road and the view is obstructed by parked
cars would have saved him. The helmet didn't.

All this hoo-ha about helmets is diverting attention away
from the issues which really make a difference to cyclist safety,
including proper cycling education (especially effective cycling
techniques), lights at night and enforcement of speed limits and
drink-driving laws.

If the police and the community could spend their time on these
issues, instead of bothering with helmets, you'd see some real
improvements in cyclist safety, instead of the phoney stats
used by politicians and others with a vested interset in helmet laws.

Dorre
: Michael Cutts

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
I've heard that cycling deaths went down at the same rate as cycling. I've
heard that fewer children cycle in New Zealand now and that is the reason the
death rate is down. Is this true?

Helmet use has increased dramatically in the US over the las few decades and
the deaths rate per cyclist is actually up some.

Jack Dingler

Mike Cutts wrote:

> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.

> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.

> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.
>

> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>

> Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...

> >Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> >when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> >styrofoam cooler?
> >

> >The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
> >that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
> >adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
> >time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> >they will want to be like you.
> >

> >Why not set a GOOD example for them?
> >

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Limey wrote:

> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> styrofoam cooler?
>

When was the last time you saw a warm blooded watermelon? Whe was the last time
you saw a watermelon exercising in 100f+ heat? (Morning temps for much of Texas
in the summer).

Should we put a bag of ice in our helmets before strapping them on?

>
> The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
> that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an
> adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any
> time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> they will want to be like you.
>
> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>

Kids may not have the experience to determine, when they're suffering the
effects of heat exhaustion. Why encourage them to suffer brain damage from the
heat? Why require them to suffer brain damage from the heat?

Summer conditions in Texas are not conducive for helmets. If kids were forced
to wear them here, they would be unsafe during daylight hours. We have MHLs in
some cities in Texas. They aren't enforced because even the police officers
know it's too hot in the summer to wear a helmet. Few would even bother to get
out of their air conditioned cars to stand in the baking sun to give these kids
a lecture.

The bike cops in the West End at Dallas, do wear helmets but they patrol mostly
evenings. They also wear shorts and short sleeve shirts.

Nice looking Bent by the way. :)

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
In my region, more and more kids only ride bikes, when their dad takes
them to a park.

It's generally thought that cycling is too dangerous now to be done on
sidewalks and streets.

I think cycling is a dying tradition where children are concerned.

Although bike sales for children has only declined a little over the
last two decades, I think the lifespan of children's bikes has been
reduced dramatically.

One notable datapoint... Local pawn shops have been purchasing bikes
of all types at an increasingly frenzied pace. They then sell them to
brokers who ship them to Mexico. This would suggest that there are
fewer working bikes in the area, than ever before.

Jack Dingler

"Brent A. Peterson" wrote:

> In article <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,


> Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> > when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> > styrofoam cooler?
>

> Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
> heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.
>
> Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam
> of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> work to offset the styrofoam)
>

> > Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
That argument works okay in recreational rides. Most of my riding is inner
city. Have you tried standing at light after light in heavy 5pm traffic with a
helmet on?

How comfortable is your helmet if you wear it whil standing in a Walmart parking
lot, in full sun, from the hours of 2-3pm?

Not everyone rides like you do. Not everyone rides like I do.

I pick and choose the times I wear a helmet. I tried for a while to wear one at
all times while riding, but on Harry Hines in heavy traffic, I swear the
combination of concrete and blowing auto exhaust, brings the temps near the road
past 145f.

Jack Dingler

johnb913 wrote:

> Here in the good ole USA whenever the Federal or State
> Governments start to push to enact mandatory helmet laws you can
> be sure of one thing, the helmet manufacturers are the ones who
> are at the forefront pushing for the laws to be passed. The
> politicians who are trying to pass the laws don't give diddly
> squat about your health or safety, that's all they care about is
> having their pockets lined with campain contributions from the
> manufacturers who stand to reap economic windfalls if their
> agenda is passed.
>

> As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
> it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
> helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
> sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
> stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
> cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
> released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
> idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
> hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
> that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
> sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.
>

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Are you suggesting that a person is just as likely to die if they ride without
a helmet, as a person is if they skydive without a parachute? I seems you're
suggesting that cycling without a helmet is certain death.

Do you really believe that cycling under any conditions, is this dangerous?

Jack Dingler

Mike Cutts wrote:

> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
> down today.
> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
> tomorrow.
> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.
>

> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>

> Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Mike Cutts wrote:
>
> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
> down today.
> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible.

This sort of vague notion has been put up here many times. "Oh, but the
world is SO much more dangerous today than ever before!"

Baloney. Look at the numbers. Things are safer today than they were 20
years ago, by almost any measure.

Sure, you can find some city streets where the neighborhoods have become
run down, and in certain cases you can find places where the bad guys
are too much in control. But I ride my bike to work into the center of
the city, and I've been doing it for over 20 years. I have had NO
problems. NONE - despite hand-wringers telling me I'm going to get
shot.

Likewise, you can find streets where the traffic has increased to the
point that riding a bike is much less pleasant. But I assert that most
people simply ride elsewhere. When we talk about kids riding, almost
all their riding is done in residential neighborhoods, and there has
been no significant change in the safety of that sort of riding. Again,
look at the numbers.

The problem with saying "Oh, you can't do that, it's too dangerous now!"
is that the very statement makes things worse - by causing people to
further abandon and avoid inner-city neighborhoods, or by causing people
to say "Wow, I guess bicycling IS too dangerous for my kid!"

> We cant let the
> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like to
> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no matter
> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
> tomorrow.

I hate it when people start equating riding a bicycle to jumping out of
a plane. Do people not understand that an hour of bicycling without a
helmet is as safe or safer than an hour of riding in a car? That it's
four times safer than an hour of swimming?

> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.

And so are cycling gloves, and elbow and knee pads, and wrist
protectors, and shoulder pads, and shin guards... ah, but those aren't
trendy enough for the hand-wringers to promote! ...yet...

Cycling is _already_ safe enough that you will _certainly_ be able to
ride your bike tomorrow - if you don't do something stupid. If someone
wants to make cycling even safer, it would be much more logical to spend
time talking about educating kids to ride properly. It would be much
more effective than helmets, and it wouldn't require the "cycling is
dangerous" philosophy that underlies the helmet mania.

--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Mike Cutts wrote:
>
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.

How interesting! The data I've seen on New Zealand shows no difference
in head injury statistics, despite sudden surges in helmet wearing!

My data is from the paper published by Scuffham and Langley in Accident
Analysis and Prevention, vol 29, no 1, pp. 1-9, 1997. They're at the
Injury Prevention Unit of the University of Otago Medical School in
Dunedin, NZ. What data do you have that contradicts theirs?

> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.

I know of several people who _claim_ that their helmets saved their
lives, because their helmets were slightly dented. I also know of
several people who _would_ have dented helmets just as badly if they had
worn them, but they didn't wear them. They are still alive - in fact,
they are in perfect health.

And I know (or knew) several people who were killed or seriously head
injured. However, they were all seriously head injured or killed while
traveling in cars or trucks. Now, interestingly, travel by motor
vehicle is by far the number one source of serious or fatal head injury,
despite seat belts and air bags. Yet people (like you) who push bike
helmets seem perfectly willing to accept risk of head injury, as long as
it happens inside a car! Why the disparity? Why not tell your sincere,
hand-wringing tales to motorists?

> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.

People should have enough sense to analyze data on head injuries before
preaching to others. But they don't.

--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Limey wrote:

> Any time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
> they will want to be like you.
>

> Why not set a GOOD example for them?

I've got problems with your thinking. Is riding without a helmet
somehow a BAD example? Does that mean that over 99.99% of the cylcists
down through history (and still today) are riding around giving bad
examples?

Are you really saying that almost all the world's cycling is BAD?

--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu

Pete

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
> You can add me to that list. I hit a dog and went flying, landing on
> my shoulder and smacking my head on the pavement hard enough to crack
> my Giro, but not my skull. If it takes a law to make people wear a
> helmet, then we should have a law.
>

You wish to make it illegal for me to ride my bike without a helmet if I
choose? Why?

Why not concentrate on helping people avoid the accident?

Pete

terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Most heat escapes the human body through the head.

That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.

> The styrofoam
> of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> work to offset the styrofoam)

Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:

<http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>

The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
causes minimal temperature increase.

-terry

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

> The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote
> >
> > You can add me to that list. I hit a dog and went flying, landing on
> > my shoulder and smacking my head on the pavement hard enough to crack
> > my Giro, but not my skull. If it takes a law to make people wear a
> > helmet, then we should have a law.
> >

I have a friend who was fitness walking during her lunch hour. She fell
and was head-injured, had to be taken to the ER, missed about a week on
her job. No helmet, of course. If it takes a law to make people wear a
helmet while fitness walking, then we should have a law!

I know a guy who was riding in his brand new SUV. He was hit from
behind and suffered serious, lasting head injuries. His problem, of
course, was that he trusted his seat belt and air bag, and so he didn't
have a helmet on. If it takes a law to make people wear a helmet while
riding in cars, then we should have a law!

Now - exactly where does this type of thinking stop?

--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Mike Cutts <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote in message
news:GafZ4.27850$usz4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...

> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.

Here in the USA we call that corruption. No one is guilty of a crime until
they are so judged in a court.

> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and
cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.

I don't know where you got that idea, but certainly the study performed by
Paul Scuffham, a rather well educated New Zealand helmet supporter, showed
that there had been no changes whatsoever in the rates of serious and fatal
injuries in bicyclists when helmet use went from near zero to more than 80%
in some groups.(Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., Trend in Cycling Injuries in
New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use, 1997, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 )

But I'm sure that you have better information and can cite it.

> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.

How many deaths occur each year in New Zealand to bicyclists? How many
before the helmet legislation? How many cyclists are in NZ? What do you
think that chances are of dying in a bicycle accident? What do you think the
chances are of there being three such cases in such a short period of time.

Here's a clue -- you have a very good imagination. That is what helmet
advertising plays to. You aren't any different than most other people.

> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.

Could it ever occur to you that perhaps the people have better sense than
the government? No, in your sort of people it probably doesn't.


David Cásseres

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>, terry
morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:

Give it up, Terry -- you're dealing with people's religion here, and the
religion says that Helmets Cause Death By Heat Stroke.

--
David Cásseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

David Cásseres

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
just another stupid hoax?

Avery Burdett

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
"Mike Cutts" (mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz) writes:
> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and the police
> enforce it with instant fines.
> What this has meant is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle
> deaths and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.
> I have "used" a helmet on several occasions, both on and off road, once
> within 2 minutes of leaving home, and know of several people who can thank
> helmet wearing for currently being alive.
> It shouldnt be down to the government to legislate for this sort of thing,
> people should have enough sense just to wear helmets, but they dont.

Sounds pretty much like the standard born-again message from newbies to
cycling.

At least do some homework. You might avoid making a fool of yourself again.
Start at the Bicycle Helmet FAQ:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

It was compiled to address the sort of myths you have so fervently embraced.

>
> --
> Michael Cutts
> Technical Admin
> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>

> Limey wrote in message <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...

>>Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>>when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>>styrofoam cooler?
>>

>>The fact that you wear your helmet 'sometimes' makes me think
>>that you can appreciate their usefulness. Why then, as an

>>adult, would you not want to be a good role model for kids. Any


>>time a kid sees you without a helmet, it just makes sense that
>>they will want to be like you.
>>
>>Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>>

>>Lewis. "Benbrook's Best 'Bent Bicyclist"
>>
>>http://members.home.net/limeylew/index.htm
>>
>>
>>

>>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
> *
>>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>>
>
>


--

Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Tom Kunich

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
johnb913 <johnb913...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:218d1719...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...

> As to being to hot here in Texas to wear bike helmets, believe
> it or not it is cooler to wear a light colored, well ventilated
> helmet then to not wear one. The light colored helmet reflects
> sunlight (AKA heat) from your head instead of being absorbed and
> stored. Your head is a crucial part of your bodies heating and
> cooling system, a large part of your bodies stored heat is
> released through the top of your head, that is why it is a good
> idea to wear a hat in cold weather to minimize heat loss. In
> hot weather you want the heat to escape, so wearing a helmet
> that reflects the suns rays and has ventilation over the head to
> sweep away built up body heat is a good thing.

This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was resolved
when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
form and actually ran the tests.

A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
At high wind speeds there would be effectively no different between a well
ventilated helmet and a bare head.

Other helmet tests done in a University showed that cyclists wearing helmets
during moderately high exercise rates had higher heart rates and said that
they felt hotter when wearing helmets than without.

The facts are that people aren't as stupid as you and others like to
believe. If they think that their heads are cooler without a helmet they
probably know what the heck they are talking about.


terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
In Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

> This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was resolved
> when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> form and actually ran the tests.
>
> A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.

A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.

-terry

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Did you read the experiment David?

"David Cásseres" wrote:

Pete

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

David Cásseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-010...@cassda2.apple.com...

> Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
> proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
> just another stupid hoax?
>

I think this is a resurrection of an old thread.

Pete

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Actually I haven't installed a helmet, water wings or a harness in my bath
tub yet. I guess I'm just being irresponsible.

I know I should've done these things because I've slipped and have nearly
fallen in a tub, several times in my life. After my last really serious car
accident, I had such serious neck and back injuries that I nearly drowned in
my bathtub. I was able to use a toe to lift the stopper a little so the
water would drain out. Then I could turn over, knowing I wouldn't drown if I
passed out from the pain. Who knows when I might get a cramp next and
drown!?

I've already suffered two minor concussions from being rear-ended on the
freeways. Still, I'm too dumb to get an automotive helmet. Instead, I just
ride my bike when I can. It's safer.

Jack Dingler

terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:

> That's an interesting test. I commend you for even doing it.
>
> There's only one very serious difficuly with it. The styrofoam head wasn't
> heated internally. Therefore, you weren't measuring the helmet's ability
> to shed heat. You were only measuring it's ability to absorb heat.
>
> Perhaps a repeat of the test can be done with melon that has an aquarium
> heater inserted?

Maybe one of these days, if I have the time and inclination. The test
did show how air flow affects temperature rise, even if the heating was
external.

> When the entire body is overheated and unable to shed heat fast enough, a
> helmet can make a difference.

I doubt a helmet will make much of a difference at road cycling speeds.

-terry

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
I liked your response. Thank you.

In Texas, individual cities have enacted helmet laws. In Dallas, all cyclists must
wear helmets. In Ft. Worth all cyclists under the age of eighteen must wear
helmets. Both of these laws are universally ignored. WE just don't have the
problem of cyclists dying in droves, like others report. Except for the annual
summer cases of death from heat prostration, most cycling deaths in the area are
from cyclist getting hit at high speed and runover, by motor vehicles. I haven't
heard of a cyclist in the area dying from a fallover accident or by riding into an
immobile object, though it's reasonable to assume it's happened once or twice.

In every single motor vehicle case that I know any of the facts of (local), it was
obvious that a helmet would've made absolutely no difference.

In the last incident I heard of, a motorist with a dirty windshield accidently
drove through two helmeted cyclists at 50 mph (15mph over the speed limit). Their
helmets made no difference. But it did get people talking about how dangerous
cycling is, and the importance of wearing a helmet. Also, a few people preached to
me about the dangers of riding on the street and how stupid those cyclists were. I
replied to one, "Yeah but just think of how much worse it could've been, had that
been a parked police car instead!" They agreed that would've been worse, then
looked at me funny. It's actually common for police officers to be parked there.
It's right outside of a major school zone.

Jack Dingler

Pbwalther wrote:

> Seems to me that a laws on requiring Helmet wearing by cyclists would fall
> under police powers - a state governmenal function. The federal government
> probably does not have the constitutional authority to pass such a law - of
> course that hasn't stopped the federal government from passing all sorts of
> dern fool laws so maybe they would.
>
> Personally, I wear a helmet when I ride and even under very hot conditions, I
> notice no particular heating effect from the helmet.
>
> From Forester's book, "Effective Cycling", we know that competent riding is the
> best defense against injuries and helmet usage would not have a huge impact
> statistically. Forester found that most riders who were injured were only at
> best marginally competent. So the anti-helmet guys have a point - from a
> safety point of view, requiring everyone who rides bikes to pass an effective
> cycling course would have a far greater safety impact than requiring everyone
> to wear helmets.
>
> I did look at the accident rates on the web - forget the site - it is a helmet
> advocacy site. They claimed that cyclists suffered 1/2 the fatality rate of
> motorist per hour of activity and motorcycles were 4 times as dangerous to
> operate as cars - don't know how they figured that.
>
> As far as fatalities went, nearly all were bike/car situations - not to many
> cyclists manage to kill themselves by hitting something else - it can be done
> though.
>
> I looked at the info on fatalities. Men suffered much higher rates than women
> - maybe the testosterone effect - perhaps we should require castration of all
> male cyclists? Now that would have to be popular.
>
> Nearly half of the fatalities occurred at night - how about that - I did not
> think there were that many cyclists out there to be killed at night but I was
> wrong. On the night fatalities, they did not have a break down of what
> percentage were using active lighting systems - I would bet that the vast
> majority were not using any lighting whatsoever - I ride before dawn and I
> notice that virtually none of the other riders uses lights -** shudder **.
>
> I would have predicted a "fatality peak" on Sat and Sun mornings - when most
> recreational cyclists ride. I figure that recreational cyclists account for
> most of the miles ridden so one would think that there would be some effect.
> But I examined Sat and Sun and those fatality rates were no higher than the
> weekly fatality rates. That seems to be confirmation of Forester's findings -
> club cyclists have very low accident rates compared to casual cyclists.


terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:

> For me typical road cycling speeds follow this pattern...
>
> 1. Accelerate to 25mph to keep up with traffic for 1/4 mile.
> 2. Stop three minutes for traffic light, feel the hot exhaust of cars around
> you.
>
> 3. Watch the pavement appear to deform from heat waves.
> 3. Move forward a few paces, repeat #2.
> 4. Go back to #1.

That sounds pretty horrible.

> What would you call typical road cycling speeds?

I'd call 15-25 mph pretty common. If you have to stop a lot, that
surely will make a difference. There are some routes around here (SF
Bay Area) where you hardly have to stop at all. See the following:

<http://www.ChainReactionbicycles.com/theloop.htm>

There are only a handful of stop lights on this route.

-terry

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Just one question, please...

You were wearing a styrofoam bicycle helmet?

Jack Dingler

PRV8EYE wrote:

> >Re: National Helmet Legislation Coming in '00!
>
> In 1985 I was riding a 49cc scooter in Okinawa when I hit gravel and dumped it
> going only about 15 mph.
> My gourd hit the pavement with a thud and two cans of coke I was carrying in my
> jacket pocket ripped open.
> It was dark, I had forgotten about the cans and thought I was bleeding to
> death. I was pleasantly surpised once I reached home<G>.
> In 1993 I was going down a California hill on another scooter (180cc yeah I
> know they're not "real" motorcycles but I liked them for commuting, parking
> anywhere and the way you can ride all week for 50 cents in gas and the cops
> ignore scooters).
> It was raining and I hit some oil. Started sliding on my belly down the hill at
> about 40mph. I had on a heavy coat and, strangley, remember thinking "this
> isn't so bad". Then I tried to put my gloved hand down to stop and immediately
> started flipping, non stop, so fast I can't describe the terror.
> My tightly laced running shoes came off, cloths ripped to shreads, ribs
> started cracking and I couldn't stop until I hit the curb at the bottom of the
> hill. I got up bleeding, broken and my skin full of asphalt. I was angry and
> scared.
> Amazingly, the bike started back up and I drove home, with one hand, because I
> had no insurance and wanted to vamoose before the cops came.
> To make a long story longer, my new white helmet was COMPLETELY battered,
> scratched and scraped on every area.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my fat head that, on EITHER occassion, without
> the helmet, I would have been either dead or vegging away in some hospital at
> taxpayer expense for the rest of my life. Nobody has to show me any chart to
> make me a believer in helmets.
> I know a bicycle is not a motorized scooter but I routinely reach speeds equal
> to that in which I crashed my "Yamaharley", going down the steep, long, hill
> near my home.
> I know this is a stupid thing to do with the little, thin, 16" Primo Comp on
> the front of my BikeE AT and little more on the rear.
> I love to see how high I can get that computer to read and I like the
> expression on driver's faces as I pass<G>. At the age of 44, reaching 42mph on
> a bicycle is a BIG rush)
> But, even more stupid, would be to do so with no helmet, even at 10 mph.
> Been there, crashed that.
>
> Gus Morrow
> Oceanside, CA


Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
That's an interesting test. I commend you for even doing it.

There's only one very serious difficuly with it. The styrofoam head wasn't
heated internally. Therefore, you weren't measuring the helmet's ability
to shed heat. You were only measuring it's ability to absorb heat.

Perhaps a repeat of the test can be done with melon that has an aquarium
heater inserted?

When the entire body is overheated and unable to shed heat fast enough, a


helmet can make a difference.

terry morse wrote:

> Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
>
> That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
>
> > The styrofoam
> > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > work to offset the styrofoam)
>
> Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually

> be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
>

Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
was according to the text. You do know that metals have a lower heat index
than water? If you add a calorie of heat to a gram of aluminum and a
calorie of heat to a gram of water, the aluminum will reach a much higher
temperature.

Anyone who was touched bare metal, exposed to the sun on a hot day,
understands this effect.

>
> <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
>
> The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> causes minimal temperature increase.
>
> -terry

Jack Dingler


Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

terry morse wrote:

> Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
> > was according to the text.
>

> No, only the temperature probe was shielded from the lamp with a tiny
> piece of aluminum. Just enough to shade the probe, with plenty of air
> space between the shield and the probe to permit air flow.
>

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

>
> > You do know that metals have a lower heat index
> > than water? If you add a calorie of heat to a gram of aluminum and a
> > calorie of heat to a gram of water, the aluminum will reach a much higher
> > temperature.
>

> About 4.7 times higher.


>
> > Anyone who was touched bare metal, exposed to the sun on a hot day,
> > understands this effect.
>

> I'm not sure that alone would provide sufficient understanding. The
> "ouch" is more because of the metal's conductivity than its heat
> capacity. Compare walking on a hot wood deck to a hot metal platform.
>
> -terry

The wood has a higher heat index though, so it will not reach as high of a
temperature. It will however retain the heat longer.

Still comparing the materials takes us beyond the scope of cycling. And I agree
that conductivity is an important part of the equation.

I might try improving on your experiment though. It's a good idea, and I like
it. Easy to reproduce too.

I'm also considering that direct temperature readings, while riding might be
provide some good data. I wonder if a thermometer that measures ear
temperature, gives a good indication of brain temperature. I would assume it
would be close.

The temp here at the moment is only 95f. So it will be a little while longer
before our extreme temperatures kick in.

Jack Dingler


Chris Phillipo

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Jack Dingler wrote:

> Limey wrote:
>
> > Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
> > when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
> > styrofoam cooler?
> >
>

> When was the last time you saw a warm blooded watermelon? Whe was the last time
> you saw a watermelon exercising in 100f+ heat? (Morning temps for much of Texas
> in the summer).

I've been told I look like a watermelon, does that count? :)
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Ride our island.
http://www.ramsays-online.com <-- (buy bike stuff here)
http://welcome.to/Cape.Breton

Jack Dingler

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
I prefer to pick and choose when I wear a helmet. I have a problem when people
tell me I'm stupid for not wearing one at all times. I even get annoyed when
people tell me I should always wear one when riding a bicycle.

There's been some argument on the topic, but I'll still assert that when temps
pass 100f, and the humidity is 65%, riding is safer without a helmet. I know
this after nearly making some face plants from heat exhaustion. I've learned my
lesson. If someone else would like to learn it, they're welcome to come ride in
heavy traffic, on the streets of Dallas with me. We'll head out at 3pm and
return at 6pm. We must do it during the months of July or August. That person
can wear a helmet. I won't, but I get to pick the route and pace.

I do like to wear a helmet in the winter. When the temps get near freezing, a
helmet helps keep my head warm. When temps are below freezing, it keeps my
baclava from blowing off. :) Also, I like it when people comment about the
steam coming out of the vents. :)

The lifesaving effects of helmets, are in my opinion questionable. There have
been studies that seem to 'prove' that helmets would save many lives if they
were universal, yet where they have become universal, this hasn't been proven
out. In the US, only about 800 people a year die while riding bicycles. Even
with increasing helmet use and static sales in bicycles, this number has in fact
remained very stable. Almost all of these past cyclists, were riding in an
unsafe manner. I believe riding the wrong way was number one. With so few
deaths and comparatively so few serious injuries, it's no wonder that studies
can't demonstrate real world projections. Yet the propaganda is everywhere.

My helmet literature (Bell) said that it was designed to be effective against
minor injuries and was not intended as a lifesaving device or to be effective
against cars. I believe this disclaimer to be correct. Wouldn't a reasonable
person? Or do reasonable people believe that a bicycle helmet is excellent
protection against trucks?

In the end Mike. I'll fight for your right to decide. And happy riding.

Mike Cutts wrote:

> Not quite, merely that if an option makes sense, choose it.
> No you are not going to die if you ride without a helmet, likewise people
> have survived parachute failures. The odds are considerably different, but I
> am fairly sure you know what I meant.
>
> Seatbeats (safteybelts)?
> Crash helmets?
> Lifejackets?
> et al.
> Have all been made a legal requirement at some point. The same arguments can
> apply. And yes if you feel safer you will probably play harder. Blah blah
> blah.
>
> I s'pose at the end of the day there are always going to be two (or more)
> sides to this argument.
>
> Which is why I am going to quit now.

Dorre

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
terry morse (tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com) wrote:
: Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:
: > When the entire body is overheated and unable to shed heat fast enough, a

: > helmet can make a difference.

: I doubt a helmet will make much of a difference at road cycling speeds.

You are joking, surely!
A helmet prevents sweat evaporating from the forehead, as Nature
intended it to do when people get too hot (at least in conditions of
reasonable humidity).
When I don't wear a helmet, the sweat evaporates and I feed cool
and comfortable.
With a helmet, instead of evaporating, it gets absorbed into the
pads and even drips into the eyes. That's a major loss of cooling
from wearing a helmet.
Even the watermelon + aquarium heater test suggeted by Jack isn't
the best experiment. What you need is a spongy headform + heater, all
of which is covered by an absorbant cloth to mimmick the evoporation of
sweat from the skin. The whole thing has to be attached to a reservoir
of water (to simulate the cyclist drinking to replace the sweat and keep
the spongy headform full of water).
Now put a helmet on that headform and severely restrict evaporation
of water, and I'll bet the non helmeted one is cooler.
As Jack says, the main problem is the ability of the head to
loose heat, which is restricted by the helmet. Tests which simply
measure the temperature of a inanimate headform in the sun, with
or without a breeze, aren't a useful model of reality, so we
can't draw any sensible conclusions from them!
Dorre

Tom S

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Who keeps on cross-posting these h*lm*t discussions anyway? They
are like cancer in that they go into remission, but unfortunately
keep on coming back (with the same old arguments).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Sherman
1999 Blue RANS TAILWIND/63
2000 Red RANS ROCKET

.O __............O............
_\\__\_........._\\_\-%.......
(_)^ %(_).....(_)^(_)..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a&b

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
What is TBI? Closed head injury?
bg

Beth wrote:

> I am
> actually far more afraid of TBI than death -


Pbwalther

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Jack Dingler <jdin...@texas.net> wrote:

> Was the styrofoam head wrapped in foil in the no helmet test? It seems it
> was according to the text.

No, only the temperature probe was shielded from the lamp with a tiny
piece of aluminum. Just enough to shade the probe, with plenty of air
space between the shield and the probe to permit air flow.

> You do know that metals have a lower heat index

a&b

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
You know, it was so refreshing to get away from r.b.soc (which should be
renamed r.b.helmet_hens as Cassares, Kunich, Dingler, et.al
cackle-back-and-forth-forever at the helmet "worm" and now it is cross posted
to the 'bent group. Filters on
bg

"David Cásseres" wrote:

> morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
>
> > Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
> >
> > That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> > people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> > head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.
> >
> > > The styrofoam
> > > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > > work to offset the styrofoam)
> >
> > Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually
> > be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:
> >

> > <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>
> >
> > The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> > causes minimal temperature increase.
> >
> > -terry
>

Beth

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury


In article <3936F0E4...@uab.campuscw.net>, a&b

MORJ

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
It will stop when "safe sex" means having a safety net around your bed and a
padded headboard.

Thanks big brother for saving me from myself. I just don't know any better.

George Orwell, are your listening?


"Jack Dingler" <jdin...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3936B04B...@texas.net...


> Actually I haven't installed a helmet, water wings or a harness in my bath
> tub yet. I guess I'm just being irresponsible.
>
> I know I should've done these things because I've slipped and have nearly
> fallen in a tub, several times in my life. After my last really serious
car
> accident, I had such serious neck and back injuries that I nearly drowned
in
> my bathtub. I was able to use a toe to lift the stopper a little so the

> water would drain out. Then I could turn over, knowing I wouldn't drown

Avery Burdett

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Probably a hoax, but since they know Casseres is suckered in by hoaxes,
such as the Swedish one where Casseres believed the claim by an
ambulance driver posing a medical practioner that universal helmet use in
Sweden would have eliminated every one of 60 or so cycling fatalities in one
year, they are hoping to hook him again.


David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
> proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
> just another stupid hoax?
>

> --
> David Cásseres
> Exclaimer: Hey!

terry morse

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Dorre <drob...@lash.une.edu.au> wrote:

I figured it was just a matter of time before someone brought this up.

Well, the test merely was designed to measure the difference between a
black and a white helmet under sunlight, and the test measured that
difference well.

Even without evaporative cooling, the test clearly showed that the
temperature rise of a helmeted head is minimal when air speed is above
5 mph. There is no reason to believe that adding evaporative cooling or
internal heating would change this conclusion. The main component of
convective cooling is air flow, as it is in evaporation. There was
sufficient air flow in the helmeted test to maintain a low temperature
rise. Adding evaporation to the test would not change the situation.

I might run another test with internal heating, but evaporative cooling
would be difficult to administer reliably.

-terry

Joseph

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
How about the example kids receive from any one hour of prime time
television. How about the example set from just the commercials aired
during prime time television.

There are such serious problems to be addressed in our society that
affect our ability as a species to even survive for another century that
putting time and energy into bicycle helmet legislation is total stupidity.
However, what can we expect from a civilization of human lemmings that
believe: combustion engines are our right and are necessary to survive when
they are killing us, that economy is based on continuous consumption, that
100,000 new chemicals per year is fine and acceptable, that genetic
engineering will have wonderful results, that large corporate interests and
financial motivation are the basis of our legal structure, and financial and
ego based motivation are the basis of our moral structure? Helmet
legislation and the moronic simpleton linear thinking that considers it
valid are tame compared to everything else going on.

In a way I apologize for the emotional ferver of my expression, but to quote
a bumper sticker: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention".


Jim Ek <JIM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:SnDZ4.4292$pk3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I've just started riding a bicycle again after a long hiatus. I had never
> previously worn one on a bicycle and didn't use one when I rode my
> motorcycle prior to being married --- 25 year anniversary this summer so
you
> have an idea of my age.
>
> A question comes to mind. How many accidents have occurred as a result of
> someone wearing a bicycle helmet? I have no idea regarding the stats, but
I
> think the number would be tremendously small, if any. They don't
interfere
> with hearing, they are light in weight.
>
> Now an observation. When people do things for a period of time they just
> become habit. Seatbelts are a great example. I was one of the last in
the
> state of Indiana to wear them. They legislated them, implemented a fine
if
> you aren't wearing one. So I started wearing one. Now periodically I'll
> jump in the car to run a short errand and say I'll pass on the seat belt,
> and feel like I am naked without it. So I buckle up. Does it hurt. Heck
> no. It's just habit now.
>
> What has always concerned - nah, irritated the heck out of me. Is when I
> saw folks taking their kids in a car, and the kids would be standing on
the
> front seat or biting on the dashboard. I could just imagine the an
accident
> and those kids would find themselves on the other side of the windshield
or
> an impression on the kids face on the dashboard. Came across an accident
> once where that was actually the case. Not a pretty sight.
>
> One thing I have noticed over the three weeks that I have owned by 'bent'
is
> the attention it draws. Especially from kids. We as adults make our own
> decisions based on information we collect. Kids typically haven't
developed
> that level of sophistication yet.
>
> If helmets don't cause accidents other then "helmet hair," and after
awhile
> practices become habits and habits become natural. And it might save a
kids
> life to be wearing a helmet sometime in the future. What's the harm in
> wearing a helmet and helping set an example for the coming generations?
> Sure helmets may get warm, but we can stop and cool down. I mean if we
are
> in a scenario where time is critical we would probably be taking a car.
>
> If your not concerned with the future generation. Why not just make the
> decision to wear a helmet based on the question of "is there anything
worth
> protecting in your head?" If there isn't, then you really shouldn't need
a
> helmet. If there is, then maybe wearing a helmet is a valid
consideration.
>
> In the area where I live, Bloomington, Indiana, they have passed
legislation
> requiring kids to wear helmets while riding. Nothing is required of the
> adults. What has happened. You should see all the adults wearing helmets
> around here.
>
> May you always be able to start on the downside of the hill!
>
> Jim Ek
>
>
>
> The Black Cat =^..^= <blackNO...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:nskbjs4lah4ag66cr...@4ax.com...


> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:07:27 +1200, "Mike Cutts"
> > <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >know of several people who can thank
> > >helmet wearing for currently being alive
> >

Mike Cutts

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
Not quite, merely that if an option makes sense, choose it.
No you are not going to die if you ride without a helmet, likewise people
have survived parachute failures. The odds are considerably different, but I
am fairly sure you know what I meant.

Seatbeats (safteybelts)?
Crash helmets?
Lifejackets?
et al.
Have all been made a legal requirement at some point. The same arguments can
apply. And yes if you feel safer you will probably play harder. Blah blah
blah.

I s'pose at the end of the day there are always going to be two (or more)
sides to this argument.

Which is why I am going to quit now.

--
Michael Cutts
Technical Admin
** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **

Jack Dingler wrote in message <39367FF9...@texas.net>...
>Are you suggesting that a person is just as likely to die if they ride
without
>a helmet, as a person is if they skydive without a parachute? I seems
you're
>suggesting that cycling without a helmet is certain death.
>
>Do you really believe that cycling under any conditions, is this dangerous?
>
>Jack Dingler
>
>Mike Cutts wrote:
>
>> The sad thing about "now" is that it isnt like "then".
>> I used to walk along a street near were I lived that I wouldnt even drive
>> down today.
>> Times change, and I think the important thing is to compromise enough to
>> still be able to enjoy yourself for as long as possible. We cant let the
>> thought of dying tomorrow stop us doing something we want or would like
to
>> do, but you wouldnt jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute no
matter
>> how much you wanted too, at least if you did want to still be around
>> tomorrow.
>> At the end of the day, a helmet is cheap and effortless and quite
>> convenient way to ensure you can still ride your bike tomorrow.


>>
>> --
>> Michael Cutts
>> Technical Admin
>> ** Remove "no-spam" from my address to reply by e-mail. **
>>

>> Brent A. Peterson wrote in message <8h4kec$74b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <10e1482c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,


>> > Limey <limeylew...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Hi, Martha, if you think the Texas sun makes your head too hot
>> >> when you wear a helmet, why would you put a watermelon in a
>> >> styrofoam cooler?
>> >

>> >Styrofoam is a good insulator for heat. The cooler prevents
>> >heat from the outside from melting the ice inside the cooler.
>> >
>> >Most heat escapes the human body through the head. The styrofoam


>> >of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
>> >the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
>> >wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
>> >cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
>> >work to offset the styrofoam)
>> >
>> >

>> >> Why not set a GOOD example for them?
>> >

>> >Yes, how about seting an example riding is fun and safe. Not
>> >something that is dangerous.
>> >
>> >Where I live now there are alot of over
>> >protective parents. The poor kids can only seem to ride if they
>> >have on their helmets, ride on the sidewalk and the parent(s) are
>> >present riding with them. that can't be much fun. The kids sorta
>> >just trod along with the parents.
>> >
>> >Where I grew up I still see kids riding without parents, no
>> >helmets either. They seem to be having fun. The big difference
>> >is the example and rules the parents set.
>> >
>> >Which group do you think is more likely to produce life-long
>> >cyclists? The group guarded by their parents through cycling or
>> >the ones allowed to have fun with it on their own?
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >Before you buy.
>

Brent A. Peterson

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>,
terry morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote:
> Brent A. Peterson <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Most heat escapes the human body through the head.
>
> That's generally not true, but it gets repeated often enough that
> people think it's true. The only time the most heat escapes from your
> head is when you're bundled up from the cold and are not wearing a hat.

That's funny, according to even PBS shows on how humans evolved
better heat transfer through the head is one of the advantages
of walking upright. And this was in very hot regions of africa and
before clothing.


> > The styrofoam
> > of the helmet is going to work to prevent the excess heat of
> > the body from escaping to the air. Thusly, one will feel hotter
> > wearing a helmet if that is the only difference. (reflective colors
> > cooling devices etc are additional measures that of course would
> > work to offset the styrofoam)

> Also not generally true. A helmet worn in direct sunlight can actually


> be cooler than wearing no helmet at all. See the following test:

See a heat and mass transfer textbook. The styrofoam
is an insulator, It will not increase heat transfer. If
the helmet were made of metal and had fins on it, then it
would be believable that such a helmet would be cooler.

The only way a helmet could help is if it reflected more
heat from entering than it prevented from escaping. Such
a behavior would be due the thin plastic cosmetic
cover, not the strofoam.

> <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>

> The test above shows that even at low air speeds, a ventilated helmet
> causes minimal temperature increase.

A temperature increase. exactly. It's an insulator.

Brent A. Peterson

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
In article <casseres-010...@cassda2.apple.com>,

cass...@apple.com (David Cásseres) wrote:
> In article <010620000936342518%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com>, terry

> > <http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/helmettest.html>

Another thing I noticed about this test reading further
is that it was just a strofoam head. So all this test measured
was the ability of the helmet to get rid of the heat it absorbed
from an external source. There was no heat from the 'head' that
needed to be shed to the environment.

> Give it up, Terry -- you're dealing with people's religion here, and the
> religion says that Helmets Cause Death By Heat Stroke.

I mentioned nothing about heat stroke. Only that the styrofoam
cooler anology was faulty.

Should I crack out the heat and mass text and do an analysis?
This is not religon, its simple heat transfer.

Pete

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to

David Cásseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:casseres-010...@cassda2.apple.com...
> In article <3936D654...@texas.net>, jdin...@texas.net wrote:
>
> > I liked your response. Thank you.
> >
> > In Texas, individual cities have enacted helmet laws. In Dallas, all
> > cyclists must wear helmets. In Ft. Worth all cyclists under the age of
> > eighteen must wear helmets.
>
> The problem seems to be that the State of Texas is so goddamn dumb that it
> lets local jurisdictions do this.

>
> > Both of these laws are universally ignored.
>
> In other words, it's not Texans that are dumb, just the State of Texas.

Virginia does the same thing. Allows local jurisdictions to enact their own
sets of rules. One place, its legal for adults to ride on the sidewalk...one
street over, its not.

Same with helmets. Thankfully, nothing about adult lids....yet.

Pete

Rolf Mantel

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Cutts <mi...@no-spam.ticketek.co.nz> writes:

Mike> Here in New Zealand, helmets are compulsory at all times and
Mike> the police enforce it with instant fines. What this has meant
Mike> is that you see 99% of riders wearing a helmet and cycle deaths
Mike> and serious head injuries have dramatically decreased.

Sadly, the rider numbers have decreased even more, so everybody still
riding a bike after the helmet law has a higher risk of sustaining a
head injury.

Rolf Mantel


Tom Kunich

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
terry morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote in message
news:010620001105233139%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com...
> In Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>
> > This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was
resolved
> > when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> > form and actually ran the tests.
> >
> > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
>
> A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.

Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?

Your (good) experiment showed a definite difference in heating between bare
head and helmeted head and that difference was there even with a windstream.

Tho pointed out that his head was hotter in a helmet than without one. In a
study that the summary stated showed that helmeted heads cooled equally well
to bare heads (note this Richard) the real information contained within the
complete study showed that helmeted cyclists doing moderate exercise regimes
in controlled conditions stated that their heads were hotter with helmets
than without. The charts also showed that helmeted cyclists had higher heart
rates than un-helmeted cyclists thereby backing up the claim of these
cyclists.

You may also do a simple experiment. When you are cycling and sweat if
pouring off of your head into your eyes, try taking off your helmet and
riding bare headed. Does the sweat stop pouring into your eyes? Why would
that be?


Avery Burdett

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
Another example of why Casseres has zero credibility.

Because he had already bought into the myth that bicycle helmets will save
the lives of all who wear them, he set himself up as the perfect dupe in
the hoax from Sweden which said it indeed it would have happened there if
all those cyclists killed had been wearing helmets!

The fraud I said had been pulled on newsgroup readers was indeed confirmed
as a hoax. Not surprising really. Only the completely vaccuous of
cretins would believe a helmet could be 100% effective against all fatal
blows.

So now Casseres tries to weasel out of an admission he was duped by lying
about it. Just as he did with his simpleton physics - helmet good for 20 - 40
mph at 16lbs, must be good at 2 - 4 mph at 160lbs.


David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> In article <8h6i7o$5de$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA


> (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
>> Probably a hoax, but since they know Casseres is suckered in by hoaxes,
>> such as the Swedish one where Casseres believed the claim by an
>> ambulance driver posing a medical practioner that universal helmet use in
>> Sweden would have eliminated every one of 60 or so cycling fatalities in one
>> year, they are hoping to hook him again.
>>
>>
>> David Cásseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
>> > Did I miss a post that had some sort of actual information about a
>> > proposal for national helmet legislation? Or is the name of this thread
>> > just another stupid hoax?
>
>

> Just to set the record straight, it is not true (Burdette, go look up the
> word "true" before reading further) that I believed that Swedish report.
> I did criticize Burdette for denouncing it as a hoax before we saw
> anything except a 2nd or 3rd-hand account of it.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> terry morse <tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com> wrote in message
> news:010620001105233139%tmorse.r...@terrymorse.com...
> > In Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This argument was just gone through on rec.bicycles.tech and was
> resolved
> > > when someone actually got a black helmet, a white helmet and a bare head
> > > form and actually ran the tests.
> > >
> > > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
> >
> > A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> > at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
>
> Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
> minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?

I should mention an alternate test that's been done to judge the
temperature effects of helmets. It didn't address color, but it's
instructive anyway.

Consumer Reports tested the ventilation of helmets this way: they took a
moist piece of cloth, with the weight of cloth plus moisture
controlled. They put it on a headform, put the helmet over the cloth,
then blew conditioned air at the helmeted headform. After a fixed
amount of time, they weighed the difference in the wet cloth, and took
this to be a measure of the amount of evaporative cooling.

The idea's interesting, but not perfect, of course. One good point, as
I see it, are that the test takes a step in the direction of duplicating
the same cooling method we actually use - evaporation of sweat. One bad
point is that many of us have hair (apologies to those who have
unwillingly lost theirs!) and our evaporation takes place beneath a
layer of fur, which probably clogs the helmet airflow in a way not
duplicated by CR.

CR did not, of course, do anything analogous to what Terry Morse did,
and that is compare with a bare head. OTOH, I imagine there was not
much need. Nobody would expect that a wet cloth under a helmet would
evaporate water as fast as a wet cloth directly in the airstream.

CR did not test the effect of color, nor of radiant heat gain (AFAIK).
Unfortunately, in true CR fashion, they gave very few details of the
test and no numerical results - just their usual colored circles to
indicate "Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair...". I imagine both
their test and Terry's could be improved by multiple runs (especially
when Terry's differences come down to fractions of a degree).

--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu

terry morse

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
Tom Kunich <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:

> > > A zero wind speed a black helmet was slightly cooler.
> > > At moderate windspeed a bare head was cooler by a significant amount.
> >
> > A measurable amount, but I wouldn't actually call it significant. 0.5 F
> > at 6.5 mph isn't that much of a difference, really.
>
> Here's the problem Terry. Your test only measured incident heat. That is a
> minor source of the heat in a helmet wouldn't you agree?

Um, well, I'll have to think about that. The incident heat I used was
about 60-90 watts. Does the human head dissipate much more heat than
that? A human at rest generates about 90 watts, which is dissipated
more or less equally by the skin of the entire body. Heat output goes
up during strenuous exercise, but it's still dissipated by the whole
body. I'd have to guess that my radiant heat source was the same order
of magnitude as the heat from a human head, since the head is a small
percentage of the body surface. My guess for the radiant heat I used:
bigger at rest, smaller under strenous exercise. But the same order of
magnitude, either way.

> You may also do a simple experiment. When you are cycling and sweat if
> pouring off of your head into your eyes, try taking off your helmet and
> riding bare headed. Does the sweat stop pouring into your eyes? Why would
> that be?

When I'm moving at a good speed, sweat doesn't pour onto my face. When
I stop and take off my helmet, my scalp dries up quickly. I'm pretty
sure air flow makes the difference.

Maybe I should do another experiment after all. I'll have to think
about that. I might stumble onto a helmet design idea.

-terry

terry morse

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00