Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
NYC XYZ
Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
over yet or kicked me out. =)
Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
all...). =D
Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
indirect heat might damage the helmet.
Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
then manipulating subatomic physics!)
I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
direct sunlight!
Ozark Bicycle
The marketeers would like you to believe that you should replace your
helmet if:
- You drop it
- You leave it in a hot car
- It is exposed to UV
- It is more than X years old
etc., etc.
The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say
and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy
a new one.
Just use common sense
Ken C. M.
Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin
plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it
sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged
by those blasted UV rays also.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
NYC XYZ
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>
> The marketeers would like you to believe that you should replace your
> helmet if:
>
> - You drop it
> - You leave it in a hot car
> - It is exposed to UV
> - It is more than X years old
> etc., etc.
>
> The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say
> and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy
> a new one.
>
> Just use common sense
Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
see the contradiction in that!
NYC XYZ
Ken C. M. wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>
> Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin
> plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it
> sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged
> by those blasted UV rays also.
>
> Ken
> --
> New cycling jersey: $49
> new cycling shorts: $39
> Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
Yes, I know, but for a helmet maker to say that is tantamount to saying
that the helmet is...basically useless! I mean, it's supposed to be a
critical part of one's riding gear, but it's got an undetermined "shelf
life!"
UseNet via Cable Modem
jack_fo...@yahoo.com says...
By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get
sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your
closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from
you wearing it during the summer.
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
GaryG
news:1147096120.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents,
lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.
In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.
GG
Peter Clinch
> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
> light and comfortable.
Relatively light and not especially uncomfortable is nearer the mark.
> You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
> that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.
Knowing the specification to which cycle helmets are built, and knowing
they are considerably less comfortable than a cotton cap, and knowing
they don't have any track record of saving serious injuries, I don't
really want to bother myself with the polystyrene ones as far as normal
road riding is concerned.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
NYC XYZ
GaryG wrote:
>
>
> Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents,
> lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.
>
> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
> light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
> that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.
>
> GG
The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment --
CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply
from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of
all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in
daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict
the very purpose of the product!
NYC XYZ
UseNet via Cable Modem wrote:
>
>
> By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get
> sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your
> closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from
> you wearing it during the summer.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).
That's the thing -- the exact wording is "direct or indirect heat" --
which I take to mean sunlight as well, and UV exposure in particular.
Just seems an astounding fine-print, if I'm reading this correctly! I
mean, we're talking about the most critical piece of safety equipment
for an activity that generally takes place at daytime in summer....
Tom
degrade a helmet, this degradation is very slow and only effects the
surface layers. Over time the foam does change it's characteristics but
that changes appear to be a wash as far as protection ability of the
helmet.
That being said a helmet offers almost no protection. Do NOT be fooled
into thinking that a helmet will protect your head in all but the very
slightest of accidents.
While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.
Wear a helmet if you prefer but don't let it take the place of
intelligent riding. Don't run stop signs. Always ride on the correct
side of the road. Remember that riding with others is perhaps the most
dangerous part of a ride since touching wheels will take you down
faster than anything else.
dvt
/Don't excessively cross-post/
* Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
at a time, in the same post.
* If a message truly belongs in multiple groups, by all means
cross-post. In fact it is better to cross-post than to post the same
message separately to different groups.
* Be careful when replying to a post. The initial post may have
been inappropriately cross-posted; if you do not edit the list of
newsgroups, your reply will also be inappropriately cross-posted.
* Consider setting "followups" to one group. Your post may be
relevant to 3 groups, but you can set followups to one group and then
the discussion will continue there. When using the followup header, it
is nice to put in the message somewhere "Followups set."
And from http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html:
/Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups/
Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a posting
appearing in multiple newsgroups.
NYCXYZ, please stop cross-posting or at least set the Followup-to for
one group. Thanks.
The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group that
I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion.
Ozark Bicycle
Uh, no...."the most critical piece of safety equipment" sits behind
your eyes and between your ears. Always take it with you, wherever you
go, whatever you do.
Sorni
dvt wrote:
> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>
> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>
> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
> at a time, in the same post.
> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same
> message separately to different groups. {italics added}
HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???
While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in
which it was...cast.
By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the
others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom.
Bill "and no, sarcams ain't no typo" S.
> The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group
> that I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion.
What a maroon...
Martin Borsje
David L. Johnson
> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal??
You're supposed to read the cereal box.
> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> the styrofoam's molecular structure???
The helmet manufacturers would love you to think that. For me, it's so
hard to get one that fits that I wear it until the straps decompose.
Which, last time, was only a couple years.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson
Mike Jacoubowsky
> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with
the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly
hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside
cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of
claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The
materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment
they're normally used.
But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in
normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it
would probably melt. Don't do that.
As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those
are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect
lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been
able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are
marketed as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with
protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in
general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something,
anything, and claim it will make you safer.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"NYC XYZ" <jack_fo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147094109.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Werehatrack
wrote:
>
>Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
>far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
>comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
>over yet or kicked me out. =)
<mode="snarky">
Shouldn't that be <=) now? No, wait, it's a Giro, make it {=)
>Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
>wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
>for the heck of it!
Mantra: This will not prevent STDs.
Oh, wait, it will prevent the *cause* of STDs. Unless she's...no,
let's not go there.
>Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
>warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
>all...). =D
Damn, that's more than I've paid for every bike helmet I've ever had,
altogether.
>Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
>manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
>Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
>indirect heat might damage the helmet.
Giro is reportedly owned by Bell. Such exactness is therefore
expected. Or else, obviously, the only safe way to store or use the
helmet is in the absence of heat, i.e. at 0 K, which would necessitate
that the wearer would need to be similarly cool-headed. Perhaps this
could afford us the opportunity to investigate Niven's postulate that
the brain might become a superconductor at that temp. Inquiring minds
want to know!
>Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
If you're in the habit or parking under magnifying glasses, quite
possibly.
>Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
>aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
>the styrofoam's molecular structure???
This message brought to you by the marketing department of the Sirius
Cybernetics Corporation.
>(Materials Science is such an
>interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
>Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
>come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
>then manipulating subatomic physics!)
Sigh.
>I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
Really, I will. I promise.
>but this Giro Roc Loc
>4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now.
I -do not- want to know what you were doing when you wrote that. In
fact, I am reasonably certain that I actively want to -not know- what
you were doing, and have a strong interest in failing to investigate
whether that is an accurate perception.
>Just funny to think
>that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
>direct sunlight!
Oh, the opportunities.
</mode> (regrettably, I am unable to find an example of a "rolling
the eyes and shaking the head" smiley.)
Remember: The important part of the helmet is the part on your head,
not the box or the propaganda.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
dvt
> dvt wrote:
>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>>
>> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>>
>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
>> at a time, in the same post.
>
>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same
>> message separately to different groups. {italics added}
>
> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???
r.b.marketplace.
> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in
> which it was...cast.
No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other,
more pertinent parts of my post.
> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the
> others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom.
> What a maroon...
Thanks, Bill.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Werehatrack
But the pedals we could reach wouldn't take us to the beach.
dvt
> dvt wrote:
>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>>
>> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>>
>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
>> at a time, in the same post.
>
>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the
>> same message separately to different groups. {italics added}
>
> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???
r.b.marketplace, which was trimmed from this message.
> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the
> groups in which it was...cast.
No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other,
more pertinent parts of my post.
> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people
> in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams
> mode} wisdom.
> What a maroon...
Sorni
> Sorni wrote:
>> dvt wrote:
>>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>>>
>>> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>>>
>>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
>>> at a time, in the same post.
>>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
>>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the
>>> same message separately to different groups. {italics added}
>> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???
> r.b.marketplace, which was trimmed from this message.
They don't sell helmets among other cycling accessories on there?
(Newsgroup restored so no one missed this vital discussion.) And why did
you trim the OTHER groups?
>> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the
>> groups in which it was...cast.
> No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other,
> more pertinent parts of my post.
But you yourself posted the above /exception/ to the rest of your post,
making it moot. Did you READ what you posted?!?
>> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people
>> in the others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams
>> mode} wisdom.
>
>> What a maroon...
> Thanks, Bill.
Don't mention it :-D
Matt O'Toole
> Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g.,
> tents, lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.
>
> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to
> be light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel
> helmet that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to
> wear it.
Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
worrying about.
Matt O.
Neil Brooks
who's reminded of that old Terry Jacks song;
We had joy
We had fun
We had helmets in the sun...
Man ... was that song a bag of downers or what?
frkr...@gmail.com
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
> seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
> the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
> and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
> exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
> plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
> the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
> worrying about.
I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
problem.
OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
rest was fragile.
I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
convinced the magic had leaked out.
Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.
- Frank Krygowski
Sorni
"She dropped the helmet from about three feet."
How convenient!
carl...@comcast.net
<david....@ptd.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 May 2006 06:15:09 -0700, NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
>> manuals with his cereal??
>
>You're supposed to read the cereal box.
>
>> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
>> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
>> the styrofoam's molecular structure???
>
>The helmet manufacturers would love you to think that. For me, it's so
>hard to get one that fits that I wear it until the straps decompose.
>Which, last time, was only a couple years.
Dear David,
I wonder what the result would be if we compared a
single-impact styrofoam helmet test with a similar bonk on a
plastic shower cap filled with Cheerios?
(In case a Cheerio is unfamiliar to our far-flung group,
it's a tiny semi-edible breakfast cereal ring with a hollow
center.)
I know that Cheerios do get stale and hard if left in the
sun.
But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?
Cheer(io)s,
Carl Fogel
Werehatrack
wrote:
Ummm, no, you weren't the only one.
Tom Kunich
news:_TM7g.9183$Nk3....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
I've seen the same thing. 3' just happens to be the approximate height of
the helmet if you sit it on the handlebars as some riders do or hook it over
the lever.
NYC XYZ
More wife, less usenet.
Problem solved. Two cents, please.
Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>
> Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the crap out of me. It boggles my mind that
> people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That
> said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or
> rec.bikes.marketplace.
>
> Maybe they do. Who knows?
> \\paul
NYC XYZ
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
> No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with
> the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly
> hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside
> cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of
> claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The
> materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment
> they're normally used.
>
> But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in
> normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it
> would probably melt. Don't do that.
>
> As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those
> are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect
> lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been
> able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are
> marketed as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with
> protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in
> general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something,
> anything, and claim it will make you safer.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Um, I doubt they'd get away with a disclaimer which disavows the
intended use of the product!
NYC XYZ
Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty.
Werehatrack
>But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
>styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?
Styrofoam, exposed to UV, depolymerizes from the surface inward; the
material literally turns to gritty dust. I have not tried to
determine if the dust continues to decompose and/or what the products
may be. Exposed to sufficient heat, it sags, shrinks, and forms beads
of polystyrene. It would be inadvisable to be wearing the helmet at
these temps, as the heat would do bad things to your skin and hair.
(As in, things beyond the ability of even high-priced moisturizers to
rectify.)
This may not be indicative of what a bike helmet will do when exposed
to UV or excessive heat, however, because numerous polymer resin foams
are used in their manufacture, not just polystyrene foam. I doubt
that any of them would respond by turning into sentient evil
brain-sucking creatures, but perhaps it might be best to err on the
side of prudence and avoid such risks, however small they may be.
Chalo
>
> Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
> they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
> suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
> mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
> of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
> see the contradiction in that!
Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets.
Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of
exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they
know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that
will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again,
whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet
replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make
both Bell and Giro helmets).
Chalo Colina
(PeteCresswell)
>Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
>seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
The rule of thumb that I hear for mylar windsurfing sails is about 300 hours.
Obviously simplistic bc it doesn't take latitude into account... but at least
it's a ballpark figure. After 300 hours, the material will acquire more and
more of a tendency to tear almost spontaneously.
And I've got to think that mylar is a *lot* more fragile that what they coat a
helmet with....
--
PeteCresswell
Sid
> While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
> be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
> will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.
Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
Sid
Sorni
{somone else wrote}
But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common
sense after a while.)
HTH, BS
Ozark Bicycle
Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
Mark Janeba
> But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
> styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?
As I recall, the problem with high heat wasn't for the styro, but for
the semi-flexi, semi-hard shells around them.
At least when the first super-thin-hardshell* helmets first appeared,
there were reports from people who had left them on the dashboard or in
the trunk in a closed car in summer sun and found the outer shell had
warped badly and come detached.
Well, maybe it hurts the styro as well, but this is the only anecdote
I've heard.
[*] Not the thick shells like the original Bell Bikers or V1-pros, but
the thin shells that are about as thick as a plastic slurpee cup. Don't
know how else to describe the distinction, sorry.
Mark
frkr...@gmail.com
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sid wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>
> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
- hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
"common sense" is often wrong.
So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?
And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?
Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
how could they? That would require reading!
But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?
I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.
- Frank Krygowski
GaryG
news:1147114484.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.
GG
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
frkr...@gmail.com
GaryG wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147114484.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
> > he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
> > exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
> > the company, and it was just a remark in passing.
>
> And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
> The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
> best.
I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.
Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin
to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will
propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a
test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a
full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn.
Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an
anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the
crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it
saved my life!!!"
By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.
- Frank Krygowski
Sorni
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Sid wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and
>>> hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
>> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet
>> agenda?
>
> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
>
> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> they can understand.
Hunh...yuk yuk. That be about right, unh... Ain't got no need for no city
lernin'!
> That seems to preclude actually learning
> anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study,
You decided to deride helmets and then went and found additional "studies"
(dubious term, that) to confirm your belief (opinion!). The only difference
with me (and I suspect many others) is we don't NEED studies to verify what
to us are simple, easy, common sense decisions (CHOICES).
Different people have different styles, habits, ways, etc. Frank. Should I
DAGS and cite something to back that up?
> and Ozark's refusal to
> consider that "common sense" is often wrong.
Bite us. (OK, that's wrong.)
>
> So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a
> device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's
> better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?
>
> And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
> responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
> sources?
>
> Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
> indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway
> - how could they? That would require reading!
Horse shit. There are just as many reputable sources indicating that
helmets ARE effective. Just because YOU discount them doesn't mean they
aren't valid.
>
> But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
> studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
> blather on Usenet?
OMG that's rich coming from you. If I fall over laughing, I hope I have my
lid on!
>
> I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
> views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
> daydreams. But I know that won't happen.
Logic: better to have some protection on one's head when banging it against
hard and maybe even pointy objects/surfaces. Even The Smartest Person In
The World (the intellectual bully with at least two-score IQ points on me so
that makes him 180++) believes in and wears helmets on bike rides. And like
you, he seems to extensively research nearly every waking thought he has, so
it MUST be a pretty informed choice (CHOICE).
Also, Doctor Google, if I and Ozark are such intellectual lightweights, then
why the hell do you CARE what the hell we say/think/argue/defend?!? Aren't
you secure enough in your lofty internet tower to just smugly dismiss us as
the backwoods buffoons we so obviously are?
OK, back to the comics page and reruns for us. WE AIN'T EQWIPT TO DO THESE
TALKY THINGS ON THIS HERE INTERNET THING.
Bowleggedly skulking away, Billy Bob S.
Gemma_k
"NYC XYZ" <jack_fo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147094109.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
>
> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
> then manipulating subatomic physics!)
>
> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
> direct sunlight!
>
Well, here in Oz we are forced to wear a helmet.
Oz is also the land of destroying helmets by leaving them in the car. It's
very easy to do.
You will know if they've packed it in from heat, the thin hard shell goes
all wrinkly and tries to detatch from the polystyrene.
:-)
mt9...@hotmail.com
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
> over yet or kicked me out. =)
well, since you bought it anyway why not start wearing it when on your
bike? This is usually enough to appease the Nazis as they tend to be
more fixated on helmut wearing than safety <vbg>
best wishes
james
Hadron Quark
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Sid wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
>> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
>> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
>
> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
>
> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
> - hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
> "common sense" is often wrong.
>
> So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
> that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
> nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?
Read up on Occams Razor.
>
> And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
> responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
> sources?
>
> Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
> indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
> how could they? That would require reading!
>
> But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
> studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
> blather on Usenet?
You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.
Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect
against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour?
Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed.
>
> I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
> views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
> daydreams. But I know that won't happen.
Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would
you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it?
See? Its not so difficult. FWIW, I hate helmets and dont wear one as I
feel that it reduces my overrall awareness - others I know say it doesnt
affect them at all in that way.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
--
frkr...@gmail.com
Hadron Quark wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> Sid wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
> >>
> >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
> >
> > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
> >
> > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> > they can understand.
>
I've done that long ago, thanks.
I don't believe William of Occam would approve of "If I hit my head a
helmet will help, so everyone should wear helmets." For one thing,
he'd probably want some data.
I believe he'd be more impressed with "They made the whole population
of Australia wear bike helmets, and they observed no improvement in
serious head injuries per rider." Based on that, he'd say "The
simplest explanation is best. The helmets aren't providing significant
protection."
Again, for Sorni and Ozark, the latter cuts no ice. Actual data is too
much trouble. Perhaps you're with them?
Those interested in the latest data, published in the British Medical
Journal, should go to http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf
> You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
> data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.
??
Helmets are promoted as protecting against serious head injuries. Data
indicates they don't protect against serious head injuries - at least,
data from large populations.
Why is checking to see if they actually work "minutae"?
You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.
- Frank Krygowski
Hadron Quark
>
> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?
--
Sorni
Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Frank,
Reading the two inane replies so far, you have my sympathy
and my admiration for your patience.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Eric
Any idea why nobody thought of this before?
Bill
How about the "Helmets cause over confidence" argument. Bicycle helmets
still leave your forehead, nose, and teeth out there to get hit, but mainly
protect the critical back part of your brain, where a hard whack could mean
sudden death. I saw a more protective type of helmet in Mountain Bike
Action magazine but it covers the ears and may not be much good for road
riding.
I guess it depends on how much protection you want versus how much awareness
of surroundings 'hearing' you want to give up.
The stunts on mountain bikes really do want a better helmet, but then again
these guys are not listening for cars either.
Personal choice is up to the rider.
Bill Baka
Bill
> By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
> the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
> and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.
I think one is designed to be biodegradeable due to the "Save the Earth"
movement. OK for garbage cans which typically get bashed to death anyway,
but not so good for helmets. Most of the plastic stuff I have that is over
10 years old seems to be getting flakey, whether by intent or not is
probably a moot point.
Bill Baka
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Ozark Bicycle
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
> > frkr...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >> Sid wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> > >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
> > >>
> > >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> > >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
> > >
> > > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
> > >
> > > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> > > they can understand.
> >
You really are a pompous gasbag, aren't you?
> > Read up on Occams Razor.
>
> I've done that long ago, thanks.
>
You may have read it, but did you _understand_? In essence, it is to
"postulate the fewest hypothetical entities" (i.e., the simplest
plausible explanation is usually best). Your reaching and hiding in
statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame. See: "Helmet
Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing.
Experience, Frank....it means actually doing it, having it happen, not
curling up with Penthouse, AstroGlide and your imagination.
BTW, what brand of bumwad is best, based on your extensive research?
<surplus hot gases snipped>
Cathy Kearns
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1147140620.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
is a bike in the vicinity or not. It would help on stairs, in showers, in
car crashes, all of which have more injuries per capita than bicycles. So,
if it's so commonsensical, why aren't people wearing helmets whenever they
get off the couch?
I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
(there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
Sorni
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> Sid wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and
>>>>>> hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a
>>>>>> helmet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who
>>>>> can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their
>>>>> anti-helmet agenda?
>>>>
>>>> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
>>>>
>>>> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to
>>>> levels they can understand.
>>>
>
> You really are a pompous gasbag, aren't you?
Invective! Invective! Haven't you figured it out yet, O? We're supposed
to let Frank and JFT and Press and Dough and {insert favorite AHZ persona
here} talk down to us, insult us, dismiss us, etc. and then just say "Thank
you, sir, may I have another?"
How DARE you resort to name-calling?
{sarcams off; sorni out}
(PeteCresswell)
>To me it seems that a helmet would save your head in any fall, whether there
>is a bike in the vicinity or not. It would help on stairs, in showers, in
>car crashes, all of which have more injuries per capita than bicycles. So,
>if it's so commonsensical, why aren't people wearing helmets whenever they
>get off the couch?
I can't prove it, but I believe that a helmet would save my life it I fell in
such a way that the side of my head were slapped into a 3" pointed
pyramid-shaped outcropping sticking up from the ground around it.
I don't expect such outcroppings or other rocks on the stairs, in showers, or in
my car - so I'd never think of wearing a helmet there.
Similarly, when I'm riding in conditions where rocks aren't an issue, I may or
may not bother with my helmet - mostly depending on weather and my mood...
I cite that particular example because having my head slapped on the ground hard
enough to knock me out - but a few inches clear of such an outcropping - was
what got me wearing a helmet after heaven-only-knows how many thousand miles of
road riding with the wind in my hair.
--
PeteCresswell
frkr...@gmail.com
> >
> > I've done that long ago, thanks.
> >
> You may have read it, but did you _understand_?
Quite well, thank you. FWIW, one of my best friends is a recognized
expert who wrote a college textbook on critical thinking.
> Your reaching and hiding in
> statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame.
:-) In your expert opinion?
> See: "Helmet
> Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing.
Yes, I've seen it. An exercise for those who believe "data" is the
plural of "anecdote." You'd get similar positive results by polling
clients of faith healers, you know.
Why _do_ you think national-level studies show different results?
Scientist conspiracies?
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>
> I can't prove it, but I believe that a helmet would save my life it I fell in
> such a way that the side of my head were slapped into a 3" pointed
> pyramid-shaped outcropping sticking up from the ground around it.
>
> I don't expect such outcroppings or other rocks on the stairs, in showers, or in
> my car - so I'd never think of wearing a helmet there.
>
> Similarly, when I'm riding in conditions where rocks aren't an issue, I may or
> may not bother with my helmet - mostly depending on weather and my mood...
>
> I cite that particular example because having my head slapped on the ground hard
> enough to knock me out - but a few inches clear of such an outcropping - was
> what got me wearing a helmet after heaven-only-knows how many thousand miles of
> road riding with the wind in my hair.
FWIW, I had a somewhat similar experience about ten years ago.
I was on foot. I'd taken the garbage out at night in wintertime.
Coming back to the house, my feet slipped on a film of ice and I went
down like a judo throw, hard on my left side.
As I lay there, I looked down and saw a pointed edge of our sidewalk
that my pelvis had missed by six inches or less. And I instantaneously
thought "Wow. I could have broken my pelvis." I got up, walked into
the house... and to my amazement, started literally shaking.
However, I did _not_ start wearing hip protectors when walking in
winter. And nobody would. As usual, it's only cycling that gets the
"protective equipment" treatment.
- Frank Krygowski
Ozark Bicycle
frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Read up on Occams Razor.
> > >
> > > I've done that long ago, thanks.
> > >
> > You may have read it, but did you _understand_?
>
> Quite well, thank you. FWIW, one of my best friends is a recognized
> expert who wrote a college textbook on critical thinking.
>
> > Your reaching and hiding in
> > statistical BS would make Occam hide his head in shame.
>
> :-) In your expert opinion?
>
> > See: "Helmet
> > Poll: First Hand Experience" for what people ae really experiencing.
>
> Yes, I've seen it. An exercise for those who believe "data" is the
> plural of "anecdote."
Discount real world experiences all you like, that's all you have.
Remember to inflate that doll and "lube up". Have a happy night!
< Frank's noctural emissions snipped>
Tom Kunich
news:873bfji...@gmail.com...
>
> You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
> data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.
So does a baseball cap. The difference in fact isn't large enough between a
bicycle crash helmet and a baseball cap to make much difference. If you WANT
to wear one that's perfectly OK with me. If you want to insist they work I
suggest you actually learn something. Start at the Snell Memorial
Foundation's web site. They will explain if you can understand fairly simple
mathematics, that their standard is pitifully inadequate for purposes of
simple protection in a dead stop fall-over.
After you finished with that you can look at the CPSC helmet standard and
you will see that standard is significantly BELOW the Snell standard.
Now go tune in to the one of the latest issues of Consumer Reports and
WHEEEEEEE - MOST of the helmets BARELY make the lower standard, a
significant number don't even pass that lower standard and the most
expensive helmets are worse that the cheaper ones.
Funny how education might modify the mind of someone who actually has one.
> Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect
> against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour?
> Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed.
If you're trying to protect your hand from a chainsaw with a glove then the
answer is NO. Go that? The BEST gloves won't protect your hand from a chain
saw. Or is it your suggestion that we redefine a gauntlet as a glove so that
you can feel clever?
If you're suggesting that gloves on a bicyclist are not significant
protection for your hands you are incorrect.
A bicycle helmet in the vast majority of serious or fatal bicycle accidents
has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER!!!
If you're trying to sell helmets as mediating minor head injuries then
indeed we have something to discuss. Perhaps THAT is the reason that you
wear a helmet? After all we have all seen the Bell and Giro ads - "Bicycle
Helmets Help Reduce Minor Injuries".
> Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would
> you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it?
I can honestly say that in my 45 years of riding motorcycles all over the
US, road racing, desert racing, cross country, touring, Safety Director for
the American Federation of Motorcyclists, bicycling for the last 20 years,
off road, on road, road racing etc. I have NEVER heard of nor seen a single
head injury caused by a big stick covered in tar and gravel.
And I would be really interested in your discription of this accident in
which a helmet apparently saved your life.
Tom Kunich
news:rPV7g.324$22...@fe04.lga...
>
> And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the
> issues"???
> The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
> best.
Well, the San Jose Mercury printed a story many years ago from the Director
of Advertising for Specialized helmets and he was laughing and said that
they had a tiny advertsing budget because the safety freaks were more than
happy to spend all their own money to promote helmets.
Hadron Quark
> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.
Peter Clinch
> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
>
> Why would you wear a helmet when running?
For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,
since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running
and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing
one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and
then pushed as a solution in search of a problem.
> You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables
Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms
getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been cycling
almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that to be a
problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you do?
> you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
> mirror
About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since
mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant?
The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that
encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing by,
nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that wearing
helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is perceived
as "safe").
> Its totally different risk factors
> with totally different accident results.
Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors
should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be
much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the
energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are
built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing worse.
I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and falling
(a primary cause of ER head injuries) more than runners.
Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists: in
typical roadgoing use, not much at all.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
John Forrest Tomlinson
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
>with totally different accident results.
Totally? People get hit by cars running.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Hadron Quark
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
>>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
>>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
>>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
>>with totally different accident results.
>
> Totally? People get hit by cars running.
Err, I know.
But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
straw man.
Peter Clinch
> But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
> straw man.
"Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
expected to usefully work against?
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
>>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
>>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
>>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
>> Why would you wear a helmet when running?
>
> For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
> level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,
eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
drainage grates and gravel etc.
> since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running
> and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing
> one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and
> then pushed as a solution in search of a problem.
Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
it. They were invented for a reason you know.
>
>> You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables
>
> Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms
> getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been
> cycling almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that
> to be a problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you
> do?
When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
someone just walked out in front of me. Ive had a case where a dog
jumped at me and my reactions were to punch the dog as I fell rather
than curl up in the foetus and prtect my skull as I crashed to the
ground with the pedal jamming into my upper thigh. Not always of course
: I dont deal in extremes to support my cause.
>
>> you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
>> mirror
>
> About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since
> mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant?
Are you just being obstinate? The clip of the wing mirror
was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
runner would. In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
with it. A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
etc etc etc I wont go on. There is no comparison between running and
cycling. Well, minor.
>
> The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that
> encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing
> by, nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that
> wearing helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is
> perceived as "safe").
Anecdotal being the word. There is also evidence which suggests that the
helmet is a sign to the driver to consider the fact that flesh and blood
is up ahead and needs protecting. Just balancing the books on that
one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
you the right of way with a cheery wave.
>
>> Its totally different risk factors
>> with totally different accident results.
>
> Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors
> should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be
> much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the
> energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are
> built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing
> worse. I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and
> falling (a primary cause of ER head injuries) more than runners.
>
> Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists:
> in typical roadgoing use, not much at all.
You clearly have strong views : so do I - I dont wear a helmet because I
dont like them and the risks are low since I'm a defensive cyclist of
many, many thousands of miles experience.
I'm yet to see anything,
however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
to safety. Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
anything other than beneficial.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
>> <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
>>>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
>>>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
>>>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
>>>with totally different accident results.
>>
>> Totally? People get hit by cars running.
>
>Err, I know.
>
>But to equate the two is simply ridiculous
No.
> and attempting to build a
>straw man.
No -- it's attempting to get people to think about risk more
comprehensively..
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
>> straw man.
>
> "Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
> similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
> road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
> particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
> head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
> expected to usefully work against?
1) faster
2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
3) higher
4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
5) more prone to slip stream
6) more prone to cross winds
Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
>>>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
>>>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
>>>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
>>> Why would you wear a helmet when running?
>>
>> For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
>> level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,
>
>eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
>doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
>known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
>etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
>drainage grates and gravel etc.
I won't comment on runners specifically, but in my country tens of
thousands of pedestrians of all sorts are hit by cars and many
thousands are killed each year. And many people are afraid to walk
along suburban and rural roads because of the danger of cars hitting
them. Some cyclists feel the same way too. So, in terms of general
safety regarding cars, there are a lot of related issues regarding
people on foot and on bikes. To claim they are completely unrelated
is bizarre.
Tim McNamara
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.
Peter Clinch
> eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
> doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
> known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
> etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
> drainage grates and gravel etc.
What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel then
there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.
As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run has
ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?
> Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
> ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
> considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
> it. They were invented for a reason you know.
Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to B
utility road cycling.
> When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
> case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
> I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
> certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
> someone just walked out in front of me.
I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them saying
they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that matter).
> Are you just being obstinate?
No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb is
the safest place to be is even more widespread than the misapprehension
that helmets will Save Your Life.
> The clip of the wing mirror
> was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
> nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
> runner would.
No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to positioning.
> In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
> with it.
"Should" != "Does"
> A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
> momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
> etc etc etc I wont go on
And will typically skid a little and then continue. A runner's probably
more likely to lose their footing, ISTM.
> one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
> high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
> you the right of way with a cheery wave.
It does that for me, which suggests you're doing something wrong.
> I'm yet to see anything,
> however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
> to safety.
The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
So now you have.
> Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
> curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
> helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
> anything other than beneficial.
So how come in every legislature that has increased helmet wearing
significantly through mandating their use, there is no apparent
improvement in serious head injuries? Never mind the "how", that is
what *has* happened.
Peter Clinch
> 1) faster
Runners can easily attain the speeds that are maximum for the bike
helmet specification, some runners run faster than some cyclists.
> 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
But is Cathy's run on slippery/hazardous roads? There are many
instances, especially in winter with road gritting, where the sidewalks
are far more slippery than the roadway, so should runners be wearing
helmets in winter if they run on the sidewalks?
> 3) higher
Not much, but depends on the bike. Even onb my bolt-upright Brompton
I'm not as tall as a tall friend of mine: should basketball players
routinely wear helmets?
> 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
> 5) more prone to slip stream
> 6) more prone to cross winds
I'm prone to all of these but am not in the habit of (a) falling off or
(b) banging my head. "More risk" is not the same as "must be acted
against". Take two identical women, one in spike stilletos and one in
Sensible Shoes. The former is taller and less stable, so according to
the "logic" she should be wearing a helmet...
Ozark Bicycle
Peter Clinch wrote:
<snipped for clarity and brevity>
> The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
> G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
> CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
> 1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
> positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
>
Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?
Peter Clinch
> Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?
Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.
And?
Ozark Bicycle
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?
>
> Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.
>
> And?
>
>
Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam
"microshell" helmets were not yet on the market. There were styrofoam
shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent
entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very
tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And
the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but
those weren't even helmets.
The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?
frkr...@gmail.com
Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
running:
>
> 1) faster
Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
> 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should
cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should
runners don them in winter?
> 3) higher
?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny
farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's
standing.
> 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to
deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and
relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when
the runner generally does not.
> 5) more prone to slip stream
This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
stability problem due to "slipstream."
> 6) more prone to cross winds
Ditto.
If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for
data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really,
really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data.
One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
(Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
well-developed, westernized urban area.)
Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.
Read the paper and see the numbers.
> Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.
Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_
certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find
some?
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
Of course, there were passionate defenders of all those helmets back
then, too.
Here are several pertinent points:
1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use
than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more
protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to
pavement than today's microshell hats.
2) In those days, rabid helmet promotion had not taken hold. Thus,
the people in helmets were closer to the "early adopters." There's a
good probability that the early adopters of safety equipment are the
most safety conscious people.
3) 1988 is precisely when Thompson, Rivara et. al. were doing their
"85%!!!!" study. If you really think those helmets were so different
from todays (despite very similar certification tests) you should be
among those arguing against every claim of "85%!!!!"
Certainly, every study since 1988 (or it's publishing date, 1989) has
found far less benefit for helmet use - even the larger one done by the
same biased team. And the largest and least biased and most up-to-date
studies are the ones that have actually found negative benefit
(disbenefit, if you will) from helmet use.
So if you prefer to reject the '80s information and go with 2006, let's
all agree to do so. Let's go with
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Clinch
> Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988.
Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078.
Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got
lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made
to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened.
> The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
> the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?
Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not,
so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform
to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear
because they wouldn't do any harm.
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
> running:
>
>>
>> 1) faster
>
> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
Oh for gods sake.
>
>> 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
>
> Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should
> cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should
> runners don them in winter?
Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
is whether a helmet can be beneficial. Certainly I would consider
wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
netherlands cycle track.
>
>> 3) higher
>
> ?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny
> farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's
> standing.
True : I guess I meant "less stable above the ground in low speed conditions".
>
>> 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
>
> Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to
> deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and
> relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when
> the runner generally does not.
>
>> 5) more prone to slip stream
>
> This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
> stability problem due to "slipstream."
The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.
>
>> 6) more prone to cross winds
>
> Ditto.
Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are
clearly very lucky.
>
> If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for
> data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really,
> really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data.
Who said that? Not me.
>
> One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
> Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
> Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
> her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
> bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
> (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
> well-developed, westernized urban area.)
>
> Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
> for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
> walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.
>
> Read the paper and see the numbers.
>
>> Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.
>
> Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_
> certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find
> some?
I note you still dont answer the question and keep formulating a totally
incorrect one.
Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
--
Ozark Bicycle
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988.
>
> Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078.
> Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got
> lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made
> to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened.
>
Hmm....one of the "dangers" often cited is the helmet "sticking" to the
pavement after impact. The cloth covered styrofoam helmets of ca. 1988
were likely more prone to that than the later "microshell" helmets
(although the helmet makers never came right out and said so, the
"microshell"s real purpose was to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
sticking-to-the-pavement problem).
Also, the truly useless Skid-lid was in (for the time) relatively
widespread use ca. 1988.
I also wonder where the "8 million" sample size came from. What was the
demographic?
Prior to ~ 1990, I knew, first hand, of only three (yes, three)
cyclists who wore helmets (one V-1 Pro and two cloth covered foam
shells). And I hung around with alot of cyclists.
> > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
> > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?
>
> Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not,
> so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform
> to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear
> because they wouldn't do any harm.
>
If you want to take a swipe at Mr. Quark, grow some balls and do it
directly.
Hadron Quark
So what? BTW, do these statistics correctly scale to relevant numbers
involved in the "sport" or pastime? e.g everyone is at sometime a
pedestrian : only a percentage are cyclists.
Regardless,
1) I choose not to wear a helmet
2) I see no facts disproving that a helemt would, in a head collision,
offer more protection than nothing at all.
--
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
>> doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
>> known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
>> etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
>> drainage grates and gravel etc.
>
> What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
> clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel
> then there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.
Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.
>
> As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run
> has ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?
Where did I suggest that?
>
>> Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
>> ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
>> considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
>> it. They were invented for a reason you know.
>
> Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
> cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to
> B utility road cycling.
You need a tinfoil helemt.
>
>> When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
>> case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
>> I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
>> certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
>> someone just walked out in front of me.
>
> I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
> over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them
> saying they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that
> matter).
Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.
>
>> Are you just being obstinate?
>
> No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
> clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
> better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb
> is the safest place to be is even more widespread than the
> misapprehension that helmets will Save Your Life.
Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.
>
>> The clip of the wing mirror
>> was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
>> nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
>> runner would.
>
> No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to
> positioning.
Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
goalposts and creating a stir.
Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
at all. You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.
Peter Clinch
> frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>>> 1) faster
>> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
>> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
>
> Oh for gods sake.
Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
/should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
If not, why not?
> Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
> is whether a helmet can be beneficial.
So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?
> Certainly I would consider
> wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
> netherlands cycle track.
The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far better
suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to accidents in
fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you can't expect any
beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor vehicle collisions
create. It's also my experience that there is far more close overtaking
on a fietspad than on a road.
> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.
Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's from
better luck. We don't know.
> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
> in this case.
It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to wear
one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear one
too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're not
the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater proportion of
ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the cyclists, so
they're better candidates.
Hadron Quark
ps
Was just browsing some long distance touring notes:
http://www.bikechina.com/ct-johnmchale1.html
"I still haven’t decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along
the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don’t let
bees fly into your mouth"…?? I went over head-first, and it’s obvious
that my helmet saved my life."
so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to
the original question:
What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt?
.. then the answer is clear.
Compulsory? Not for me thanks.
But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only
himself to blame".
--
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>
>>>> 1) faster
>>> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
>>> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
>> Oh for gods sake.
>
> Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
> wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
> /should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
> sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
> If not, why not?
I am not complaining. I am pointing out that you seem incapable of
reaching a conclusion because you fall over yourself mumbling the
bleeding obvious.
>
>> Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
>> is whether a helmet can be beneficial.
>
> So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?
>
I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. Some scree
runners do. What is your point other than to obfuscate and come across
as a bit of a bore?
>> Certainly I would consider
>> wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
>> netherlands cycle track.
>
> The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far
> better suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to
> accidents in fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you
> can't expect any beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor
> vehicle collisions create. It's also my experience that there is far
> more close overtaking on a fietspad than on a road.
Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
to move the goalposts dont you?
>
>> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.
>
> Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's
> from better luck. We don't know.
And I dont really care : maybe you can take that offline and discuss it?
Since it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread : what you may or may
not have experienced.
>
>> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
>> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
>> in this case.
>
> It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
> wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
> one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're
Look at the title of this NG.
> not the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater
> proportion of ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the
> cyclists, so they're better candidates.
Statistics : you canprove anything with them.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Tim,
I was wondering when someone would mention that point.
Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities
next to the bicycle data.
The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years,
with neither showing any reaction to massive increases in
bicycle helmet use.
Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously
injured or killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just
walking around is more dangerous than bicycling.
Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with
nothing but thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the
speed limit on solid pavement, but the airline industry has
some rather convincing statistics that mock my fear of
heights and the lurid pictures of plane crashes that kill a
hundred passengers in an instant.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Clinch
> Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
> error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.
Sane, and prone to lapses of judgement as anyone else. However,
I'm not stupid enough to blame Fate when it's my fault, and if I'm
"clipped by a hedge" then it's my fault. Hedges are stationary and
quite visible, thus they are not /too/ hard to avoid.
> Where did I suggest that?
When you said "And guess what : Ive never known a runner injured by
anything other than self punishment"
> Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.
No: lots of cyclists use SPuDs or similar, many of them have had at
least one fall due to not getting out in time, they don't have a
reputation of getting people hurt.
> Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
> real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.
Let's do that. Let's look at the accident figures for cyclists vs.
pedestrians across the whole population. We see the cyclists
aren't particularly more prone to getting hurt, and when they do
they're slightly less prone to head injuries. So why wear a helmet?
> Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
> goalposts and creating a stir.
No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I, and many cyclists of
my aquaintance, do not make a habit of falling off our bikes when
overtaken or subject to cross winds. You may wobble a little, but
do you actually fall off that often?
> Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
> at all.
So why is there no change in serious head injuries as helmet
wearing rates rise anywhere you look at whole populations?
> You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
> should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
> wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.
But we're looking at whole populations, which take into account
every cyclist, the good ones, the bad ones, and the ones in
between. If helmets helped then the head injury rates would come
down as helmet wearing went up. It doesn't, anywhere you want to
look where there's data.
Tim McNamara
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
That's a good point- there has been no "85%" drop in head injuries among
cyclists as helmets have been adopted. And in one country that passed a
mandatory helmet law (Australia) the rate of head injuries went up. At
the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
effective.
> Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously injured or
> killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just walking around is
> more dangerous than bicycling.
>
> Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with nothing but
> thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the speed limit on solid
> pavement, but the airline industry has some rather convincing
> statistics that mock my fear of heights and the lurid pictures of
> plane crashes that kill a hundred passengers in an instant.
While I have no fear of flying per se, I hate to fly because airports
suck so very badly.
Espressopithecus
tim...@bitstream.net says...
> At
> the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
> effective.
>
>
All the other breast-beating is speculation.
Rick
NYC XYZ
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sid wrote:
> > > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
> > > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
> > > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
> >
> >
>
> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
guards -- the works?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use
>than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more
>protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to
>pavement than today's microshell hats.
I'd speculate that the typical helmet in use in 1988 was more
protective than helmets nowadays in terms of dealing with impacts --
as you said they were more substantial. But good helmets today seem
to fit much better, which might help with protection.
So which is safer overall? I'm not sure.
NYC XYZ
He'd already quoted you the British Medical Journal.
Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
> Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
> more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
> coat peg?
>
> --
NYC XYZ
> >>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >
> > Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
> > more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
> > coat peg?
>
'Cause it's called a "straw man argument."
frkr...@gmail.com
Hadron Quark wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
> > running:
> >
> > This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
> > stability problem due to "slipstream."
>
> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.
I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among
many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to
be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream"
even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing.
> >> 6) more prone to cross winds
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are
> clearly very lucky.
If someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that
contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it
thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck.
I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult
as you're pretending, either.
Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
> > One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
> > Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
> > Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
> > her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
> > bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
> > (Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
> > well-developed, westernized urban area.)
> >
> > Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
> > for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
> > walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.
> >
> > Read the paper and see the numbers.
> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
> in this case.
If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak
capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But
population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case.
Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not
beneficial.
Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to
motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should
devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more
preventable head injuries there, by far.
But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of
head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Clinch
"Oh for gods sake" not a complaint? Really?
If it's obvious that there's a speed crossover between those on foot and
those on bikes then it makes sense that speed is not a reason to always
be wearing a hat on a bike but not on foot. Yet you have suggested it is.
> I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them.
So why respond to Cathy when she asks why there is a difference between
her running and cycling as regards wearing a helmet?
> Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
> to move the goalposts dont you?
The primary difference between a fietspad and a busy road is the motor
traffic. So the primary accident difference in terms of what might
happen will be being hit by a vehicle or not. As far as minor falls go
there's a lot more close overtaking and less room for manoeuvre on a
fietspad.
>> It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
>> wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
>> one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're
>
> Look at the title of this NG.
So if we're talking to cyclists, we say that despite them being at no
more particular risk than other groups, they should wear protective
helmets that the other groups don't?
What about people that do both, like the poster who started this little
sub-thread does?
> Statistics : you canprove anything with them.
No you can't: you can /try/ and mislead but if the methodology is
published you *will* be found out in time if you're trying to pull a
fast one (for example, 85% effectiveness of cycle helmets).
Your statement above amounts to "La la la I can't hear you" in lieu of
actually looking into the matter as objectively as you can. That
doesn't do /anybody/ any favours.
Peter Clinch
> "I still haven’t decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along
> the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don’t let
> bees fly into your mouth"…?? I went over head-first, and it’s obvious
> that my helmet saved my life."
This is "obvious" to a lot of people, to such a ridiculous extent it
merits a headline page at the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation website.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019
Not as obvious as he might seem to think.
> so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to
> the original question:
>
> What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt?
>
> .. then the answer is clear.
Though in a court of law with expert witnesses we hear from Brian
Walker, who runs the company that test helmets for meeting their
specifications in the UK that:
"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made."
> But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only
> himself to blame".
No, he'll reply as above, showing how your data points aren't quite as
good as you seem to think.
Michael Press
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019
The site is too frustrating to navigate without Java
script enabled; and I will not enable it. I am not even
interested in trying to find an email address to express
my preferences.
--
Michael Press