Helmets in TdF

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

Here's the link to the current "safety checklist" the League wants you
to use, buried similarly deep. Note the wording about helmets:
"_recommeded_ or required."

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf

OK, that's current evidence. Put up your evidence. Or we'll all be
ROTFLOAO at you.

That's evidence that they're not mandatory. They could just recommend
them, they don't have to require them.

Your evidence does not support your opinion.

I believe you've lost track of the conversation!

The timidly anonymous "SMS" claimed LAB insurance requires helmets.
But the waiver form given on the LAB website does not mention mandating
helmets. The safety checklist on the LAB website clearly allows that
helmets be only "strongly recommended," not required.

That was my opinion. I've backed it up with evidence that the insurer
does not mandate helmets. If they did, it would certainly be stated in
the waiver.

I suppose it's possible that LAB insurance for ordinary club rides is
somehow more strict than LAB insurance for large invitational rides
that can attract all sorts of unskilled newbies. But personally, I
think that's very unlikely.
Perhaps "SMS" (or whoever) talked to an insurance company hack who
didn't know the real rule, or otherwise got bad information.

In any case, I'm waiting for the evidence from the guy who claimed I
don't research my facts.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's evidence that they're not mandatory. They could just recommend
them, they don't have to require them.

Your evidence does not support your opinion.

I believe you've lost track of the conversation!

That's possible. THis thread has exceeded my mental capacity....

Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The Wogster said:

It's not uncommon, for law suits to name everybody else that
could be remotely involved, so that if one can't pay the other
can.

This could be just a U.S. thing. Are the liabilty laws in France
different? I'm assuming so, as I think it's only in the US that
we are so litigious. But I really don't know.

It is a US thing...trust me or take a trip to the Canyon de Verdon for
example.

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

Here's the link to the current "safety checklist" the League wants you
to use, buried similarly deep. Note the wording about helmets:
"_recommeded_ or required."

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf

OK, that's current evidence. Put up your evidence. Or we'll all be
ROTFLOAO at you.

That's evidence that they're not mandatory. They could just recommend
them, they don't have to require them.

Your evidence does not support your opinion.

That site, "http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf" didn't
open for me, but it really is immaterial. I was stating the facts about
the LAW helmet requirement for their insurance for bike clubs, in the
mid 1980's when I was on the board of my bicycle club. At the time, even
though most of the riders and leaders wore helmets, it was not a club
policy to require them. It became a club policy only when we got our
liability insurance for the club through LAW. Special event insurance
was a separate issue, and I don't recall who we got coverage through,
but I know that we required helmets on our century ride.

The relevance is that insurers do sometimes pressure the insured into
adopting, what some consider to be, unreasonable safety precaustions. If
it was the insurers that mandated 'helmets all the time, no exceptions,'
then they did so because they believed that it reduced their exposure,
even though allowing helmet removal during climbing stages would not
have raised their exposure my much, if at all.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:24:15 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Seems to me there certified for exaclty what I said was important.
Vertical motion from a drop about as high as a riders head is off the
ground.

Without the weight of the body. Onto a flat surface. with no forward
motion. And no assessment of torsional forces.

Sure, helmets are well specified for the weight of the head alone for
a fall from about 1.5m. So's the skull :-)

Quoted message said:

And the head's what they need to protect. THe body will hit the ground
and obsorb it's own energy.

There is a manoeuvre in wrestling known as the piledriver. Banned -
too many serious injuries. Seems the weight of the body made a
crucial difference...

Quoted message said:

Looks to me those who certify helmets know what they're doing. Who'd
have guessed.

Here's an article by someone who does just that:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:26:43 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't undertand. Take a physics class.

In addition to my engineering degree? Sounds redundant.

Quoted message said:

You must have done very poorly in Physics. I hope the engineering
degree isn't in Mechanical Eng.

No, I did unusually well in physics. How were your grades in
logically fallacious arguments?

I love the idea that you're going to slow down as you fall, though. I
wish I had done mech. eng. now :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

SMS said:

That site, "http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf" didn't
open for me

How very odd. It just opened for me, clicking the link in your post.

Is there some problem with your browser that prevents YOU from
"investigating" things on the web?

Or to put it another way, you disparage me by implying people shouldn't
believe anything I investigate. Yet in your case, we have only your
story. In my case, we have links posted that people can check out.

Quoted message said:

... but it really is immaterial.

Yes, when evidence comes up that you're wrong, it's suddenly
immaterial. We've seen that sort of thing many times before on Usenet.

Quoted message said:

I was stating the facts about
the LAW helmet requirement for their insurance for bike clubs, in the
mid 1980's when I was on the board of my bicycle club. At the time, even
though most of the riders and leaders wore helmets, it was not a club
policy to require them. It became a club policy only when we got our
liability insurance for the club through LAW. Special event insurance
was a separate issue, and I don't recall who we got coverage through,
but I know that we required helmets on our century ride.

FWIW, I ran a fair-sized LAB-sanctioned century for about 7 years in
the late '80s and '90s. It had more than 600 riders, and won a "top
three centuries" award from the League. And we never required helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy said:

I love the idea that you're going to slow down as you fall, though. I
wish I had done mech. eng. now :-)

I never stated you'd slow down as you fall. I recommend you read more
carefully.

And I no longer believe you ahve an engineering degree, as engineers car
read and understand physics.

Rich

Just zis Guy said:

There is a manoeuvre in wrestling known as the piledriver. Banned -
too many serious injuries. Seems the weight of the body made a
crucial difference...

Yea, if fall straigth down and hit the ground while inverted with the
body directly above the head (not to mention someone holding you in that
postion), a helmet won't help. An unlikely scenario in a bike accident.

For future arguments, here's some more improbable examples you can use:

If you ride off the edge of a canyon, fall 500 feet to the ground, a
helmet won't help you.
If you fall off the bike and land in front of a steam roller that then
rolls over you, a helmet won't help.
If you fall off the bike into a big wood chipper, a helmet won't help.
If you ride in front of a 747's engine and get sucked in, a helmet won't
help.

Rich

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:24:36 -0600, the person
known to the court as Rich <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a manoeuvre in wrestling known as the piledriver. Banned -
too many serious injuries. Seems the weight of the body made a
crucial difference...

Quoted message said:

Yea, if fall straigth down and hit the ground while inverted with the
body directly above the head (not to mention someone holding you in that
postion), a helmet won't help. An unlikely scenario in a bike accident.

Everything after "fall" is redundant in that sentence. I know of no
way of falling on a bike in which the body is not involved!

For future arguments here are some inconvenient facts you can use:

* There is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use.
* There are six jurisdictions which achieved 40 percentage points or
more growth in helmet use through legislation. Not one of them shows
any consequent reduction in risk of head injury.
* The largest study of which I'm aware, Rodgers in 1988, showed
helmets were associated with a small but insignificant increase in
risk of head injury and a small but significant increase in risk of
death.

So, either helmets do not prevent serious and fatal injuries, or they
cause as many as they prevent. All the research money is being spent
on trying to prove they work, so we don't actually know why this is
for sure. We don't even know if the zero overall effect stretches
down to minor injuries.

We do know that most hospitalisations for cycle crashes are not head
injuries, and we can be pretty sure (limited evidence but none
contradicting) that most cyclists who die of head injury have other
mortal injuries as well.

In other words, as an overall cycle safety measure, helmets are at
best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous distraction.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:15:36 -0600, the person
known to the court as Rich <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Quoted message said:

I never stated you'd slow down as you fall. I recommend you read more
carefully.

No, "SMS" stated "What you seem not to understand is that when you
crash at 30mph, the impact to your head is not at 30mph by the time
you hit the ground."

My answer was: Indeed. It's faster than that. Newton strikes again!

You might want to view that in the context of my nationality (hint: I
live 25 miles from London).

Quoted message said:

And I no longer believe you ahve an engineering degree, as engineers car
read and understand physics.

A splendid evasion which I'm sure will do you the world of good next
time I post an inconvenient fact :-)

I suggest you also read up on diffuse axonal injury.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:15:36 -0600, the person
known to the court as Rich <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Quoted message said:

I never stated you'd slow down as you fall. I recommend you read more
carefully.

No, "SMS" stated "What you seem not to understand is that when you
crash at 30mph, the impact to your head is not at 30mph by the time
you hit the ground."

My answer was: Indeed. It's faster than that. Newton strikes again!

I don't have an engineering or physics degree, and I get it, gravity
will slightly increase your speed as you fall. Of course it's not the
acceleration that hurts, it's the rapid deceleration when you hit an
immovable object, like the ground (ouch).

As for Newton, google "Issac Newton".

W

Rich said:

Just zis Guy said:

There is a manoeuvre in wrestling known as the piledriver. Banned -
too many serious injuries. Seems the weight of the body made a
crucial difference...

Yea, if fall straigth down and hit the ground while inverted with the
body directly above the head (not to mention someone holding you in that
postion), a helmet won't help. An unlikely scenario in a bike accident.

For future arguments, here's some more improbable examples you can use:

If you ride off the edge of a canyon, fall 500 feet to the ground, a
helmet won't help you.
If you fall off the bike and land in front of a steam roller that then
rolls over you, a helmet won't help.
If you fall off the bike into a big wood chipper, a helmet won't help.
If you ride in front of a 747's engine and get sucked in, a helmet won't
help.

Funny, but immaterial. Guy and Frank are Usenet masters at using logical
fallacies in their debates.

Seriously, I think that they really do understand the physics involved
in a crash. Look how Guy is compelled to take things completely out of
context to defend his position. A crash at 30mph does not result in a
30mph impact to the head unless it's head on into a wall with your head
sticking out over the handlebars somehow.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

There are massive amounts of data showing that they work. But the data
is always a comparison of how non-helmeted cyclists fared in crashes
versus helmeted cyclists. What this says is that in the event of a crash
involving an impact to the head, the helmeted cyclist is much less
likely to suffer severe injury. But what the anti-helmet people focus on
is the fact that such crashes are sufficiently rare, that statistically
there will not be a difference in injury/death rates if helmets are
mandatory. Unfortunately, statistics are not good at protecting you in a
crash.

I tend to agree with your interpretation.

I actually believe that everyone understands that when a crash
involving an impact to the head occurs, that a helmeted cyclist almost
always fares much better; the evidence is overwhelming. You've seen
some extremely bizarre fallacies posted regarding the effectiveness
based on the speed the bicycle was travelling at at the time of the
crash, but either these posters have no knowledge of physics, or they
don't understand the mechanics of a crash.

Quoted message said:

So, I just vote with my head- I wear a helmet.

I often wear one, but not always. I think the important thing is to be
intellecutally honest about the whole helmet issue, and not to delude
yourself based on trying defend what you personally choose to do.

It is true that crashes involving head impacts are sufficiently rare
that mandatory helmet use would not have much of an impact,
statistically, on the death and injury rates, even if the level of
cycling didn't change. OTOH, no one disputes the facts that helmets do
offer a great deal of protection when a crash involving an impact to
the head occurs. I know that some people like to play devil's advocate
and they come up with the fallacies that you see in these debates, but
they really do understand the facts.

Quoted message said:

I actually believe that everyone understands that when a crash

^^^^^^^
Others believe in other things, and some others believe in hard
evidence and science...

Quoted message said:

involving an impact to the head occurs, that a helmeted cyclist
almost always fares much better; the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm eager so see that evidence (for the statement that "helmeted
cyclist almost always fares much better"😉.

Quoted message said:

rare that mandatory helmet use would not have much of an impact,
statistically, on the death and injury rates, even if the level of
cycling didn't change. OTOH, no one disputes the facts that
helmets do offer a great deal of protection when a crash involving
an impact to the head occurs.

That is a contradiction, if you have some understanding of
statistics. And for the records: lots of people _do_ dispute the
assumption (and I'm not calling this a fact, as there is no evidence
that this is a fact) of helmets offering a relevant protection.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

I submit that on or about 17 Jul 2005 07:40:27 -0700, the person known
to the court as [email hidden] made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

I actually believe that everyone understands that when a crash
involving an impact to the head occurs, that a helmeted cyclist almost
always fares much better; the evidence is overwhelming. You've seen
some extremely bizarre fallacies posted regarding the effectiveness
based on the speed the bicycle was travelling at at the time of the
crash, but either these posters have no knowledge of physics, or they
don't understand the mechanics of a crash.

Says Scharf, who is, after all, one of Earth's leading experts on
hubris.

Meanwhile in a recent article by Brian Walker of Head Protection
Evaluations, ex-Snell and long-time tester of most helmets coming into
the UK, even in a case where a cyclist fell onto flat, smooth tarmac
at low speed, he was unable to get any one of two eminent
neurosurgeons and a materials scientist to state categorically that a
helmet would have made a difference.

And the lawyers in the case were equally unsuccessful in getting them
to state that, in a crash, you'd always be better off wearing a
helmet. So where jurisprudential standards are applied, it looks like
people might be a bit more equivocal.

Quoted message said:

I often wear one, but not always. I think the important thing is to be
intellecutally honest about the whole helmet issue, and not to delude
yourself based on trying defend what you personally choose to do.

Absolutely true.

Quoted message said:

It is true that crashes involving head impacts are sufficiently rare
that mandatory helmet use would not have much of an impact,
statistically, on the death and injury rates, even if the level of
cycling didn't change. OTOH, no one disputes the facts that helmets do
offer a great deal of protection when a crash involving an impact to
the head occurs.

A great deal? Oh, I think I know a fair few people who dispute that,
based on the experience of whole populations which have achieved close
to 100% helmet usage.

Quoted message said:

I know that some people like to play devil's advocate
and they come up with the fallacies that you see in these debates, but
they really do understand the facts.

Speaking as one who understand many of the facts (having taken the
unusual step of actually reading many of the studies), I can confirm
that fallacies are indeed often used by all sides of the debate.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Helmet_Fallacies

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:33:16 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Funny, but immaterial. Guy and Frank are Usenet masters at using logical
fallacies in their debates.

Really? Do cite.

Quoted message said:

Seriously, I think that they really do understand the physics involved
in a crash. Look how Guy is compelled to take things completely out of
context to defend his position.

Now check the nationality. Truly is it said that Americans don't "do"
irony!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Helmut Springer said:

Quoted message said:

I actually believe that everyone understands that when a crash

^^^^^^^
Others believe in other things, and some others believe in hard
evidence and science...

Quoted message said:

involving an impact to the head occurs, that a helmeted cyclist
almost always fares much better; the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm eager so see that evidence (for the statement that "helmeted
cyclist almost always fares much better"😉.

I suggest that you go back and look at references in one of the numerous
helmet debate threads.

However no amount of data will convince some people, as they will come
up with an excuse for every study. The most compelling study was a
ten-year Florida study, which looked at deaths and injuries of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. As soon as this study was brought up here,
the rationalizations began. There was an attempt to extrapolate the
motorcycle data onto cyclists because it showed no benefit to helmet
use. There were claims that the reason for the difference in fatalities
(40%) must have been because the people killed were drunks coming home
at 2 a.m. in the dark, with no lights.

I just wish that people would both be intellectually honest, and not
resort to fallacious argument techniques, in defense of their position.

SMS said:

Rich said:

Just zis Guy said:

There is a manoeuvre in wrestling known as the piledriver. Banned -
too many serious injuries. Seems the weight of the body made a
crucial difference...

Yea, if fall straigth down and hit the ground while inverted with the
body directly above the head (not to mention someone holding you in
that postion), a helmet won't help. An unlikely scenario in a bike
accident.

For future arguments, here's some more improbable examples you can use:

If you ride off the edge of a canyon, fall 500 feet to the ground, a
helmet won't help you.
If you fall off the bike and land in front of a steam roller that then
rolls over you, a helmet won't help.
If you fall off the bike into a big wood chipper, a helmet won't help.
If you ride in front of a 747's engine and get sucked in, a helmet
won't help.

Funny, but immaterial. Guy and Frank are Usenet masters at using logical
fallacies in their debates.

Seriously, I think that they really do understand the physics involved
in a crash. Look how Guy is compelled to take things completely out of
context to defend his position. A crash at 30mph does not result in a
30mph impact to the head unless it's head on into a wall with your head
sticking out over the handlebars somehow.

You need to think with your helmet holder though, out of say 100
crashes, how many involve the kind of impact where a bicycle helmet
offers much (if any) protection. A few strips of cheap plastic welded
together and a little styrofoam, at best, it ain't much. Now look at a
motorcycle helmet, essentially everything above the neck is encased in
heavy plastic and thick foam. At 30MPH on a bike, for effective
protection, you would need to wear a motorcycle helmet with full face
mask and preferably leathers for protection from road rash. Heck even a
construction hard hat offers better protection.

Now lets stay realistic for a moment, a bicycle has far more
manuverability then a motor cycle, which is mangatudes more manuverable
then any 4 wheeler. A bicycle typically travels at lower speeds, has
much better braking ability and much narrower turning radius. Because
of it's open architecture the operator is far more able to be aware of
surroundings on a bicycle, and because of the lower noise factor,
auditory clues that no MV operator can ever hear, are fully available.

W

I submit that on or about Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:54:21 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

I suggest that you go back and look at references in one of the numerous
helmet debate threads.

Just as a matter of interest, how many of those papers have you
actually read in full?

Like many other sceptics I used to be an enthusiastic advocate for
helmet use until I was actually prompted to go out and read the data
(I have several hundred papers in my helmet library now and it's far
from complete), so I'm quite happy to change my view based on the
evidence.

Quoted message said:

However no amount of data will convince some people, as they will come
up with an excuse for every study.

Works both ways :-) There are six jurisdictions which have shown a
forty percentage point or greater increase in helmet use after
compulsion, not one of them shows a consequent reduction in head
injury rates. Actually, the British road safety minister said in a
letter that the Government knows of no case where cyclist safety has
improved with increasing helmet use.

One reason you get "excuses" for "every" study, of course, is that a
lot of them share common flaws. There are parallels: numerous
observational case-control studies showed that women who used combined
hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of coronary heart
disease. The medical profession pretty much decided that CHRT
prevented CHD in women, and allowed the drugs companies to mount
clinical trials. The result showed a small but significant /increase/
in risk - the reason for the difference being down to the common
self-selection bias in the observational studies. Women who went for
HRT were more likely to be middle-class and have good diet.

Actually, a recent paper showed that five out of six widely-cited
observational studies turned out to be wrong or significantly
over-optimistic, as measured by subsequent clinical trials. It seems
that *most* observational case-control studies are wrong!

So, although I don't deny that a flawless study might exist, I've not
seen it to date. But as I say, my library is not complete.

Quoted message said:

The most compelling study was a
ten-year Florida study, which looked at deaths and injuries of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. As soon as this study was brought up here,
the rationalizations began.

Which study is that? Cite, please.

Quoted message said:

I just wish that people would both be intellectually honest, and not
resort to fallacious argument techniques, in defense of their position.

So do I :-)

I also wish that those who are advocating helmet use would stop
reversing the burden of proof and challenging sceptics to prove
helmets "don't work" (would you accept that drug companies should be
allowed to challenge the FDA to prove new drugs don't work, rather
than the other way around?). Case-control studies are inadmissible
for other interventions, for good reasons.

And I also wish that those who have made up their mind one way could
be content for others to make up their mind the other way. I will
stick my neck out here and suggest that there will not be more than a
handful of helmet threads in the archive that have started with anyone
saying "don't wear a helmet" (other than maybe as a joke).

I especially wish they'd stop trying to force their choice on others
by legislation. One thing that does *not* work, according to a really
substantial body of evidence, is forcing people to wear helmets.
Anyone who has read the major pro-helmet studies in detail is likely
to understand why: putting a hat on a head does not turn the wearer
into the kind of risk-averse cyclist who will wear one by choice.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound