Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 30 May 2006 07:33:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>GaryG wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
>> > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
>> > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
>> > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went
>> > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
>> > >enough evidence for me.
>> >
>> > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>>
>> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>>
>> > That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently
>> > preventing serious injury and death.
>>
>> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
>> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
>> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
>> one?
>>
>
>Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
>such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
>wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

Interesting that you consider those questions childish. In any case,
do you have an answer for those questions. Or how about this one --
when you're in a car that has seatbelts but no airbags, do you wear a
helmet? Surely it can mitigate risk -- especially if your car is hit
from the side.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.
>
> It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are
> arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the
> other hand deceptive. Deception and stupidity don't go together so
> well. But they are easy insults to sling, right?

Tell that to the Bush-bashers.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling.

That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it
requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than
other practices.

Lame.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 30 May 2006 08:35:45 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
>> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
>> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>>
>> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said
>> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
>> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
>> don't merit any such interventions.
>
>Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
>serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
>alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
>a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
>years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
>either.

I know I'm just setting myself up for an Ozark insult, but I've hit my
head fishing, I've hit my head running, I've hit my head skiing and
I've hit my head cycling. Nothing more than scrapes (with stitches in
the running case).

But stuff happens. In many aspects of life. Cycling with a normal
amount of prudence doesn't seem worthy of hard and fast "always wear a
helmet" rules -- even personal rules. I think the odds of the helmet
being useful are remote. But they're easy enough to use, so if you
have one use it. But if you box yourself in to the point where you
won't ride without one, you've got a problem.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling.

> That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it
> requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than
> other practices.

Let's see... {looking at the NG field} Yup, just what I thought. These are
cycling newsgroups.

Now if there's a helmet thread in a...say, skateboarding NG or a
rollerblading NG or a /walking/ NG, then perhaps the members of those groups
would restrict their discussions to those activities. At least ideally.

> Lame.

Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're right.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.

It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are
arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the
other hand deceptive. Deception and stupidity don't go together so
well. But they are easy insults to sling, right?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 09:12:38 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.
>
> It's really odd how you (and Sorni also) make out the people who are
> arguing against you to one the one hand be really stupid and on the
> other hand deceptive.

Which part of "and/or" can't you grasp, poster boy?


> Deception and stupidity don't go together so
> well.

They seem to work for you.



> But they are easy insults to sling, right?
>

Given an easy target (that would be you!), I guess they are.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 30 May 2006 18:05:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting foots <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Quoting foots <[email protected]>:
>>>>out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I
>>>>know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I
>>>>not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know
>>>>it reduced my injuries considerably.
>>>Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have
>>>been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself.
>>Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
>>not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
>>shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
>>time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went
>>thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
>>enough evidence for me.
>
>So because the rest of your body - which, incidentally, you are not as
>equipped by evolution to protect as the head - got scrapes and burns, you
>conclude that your head would have got "maybe a concussion", and you think
>there's a possibility it saved your life?

I'm reminded of an acquaintance who broke his collarbone riding and
that made him decide to "always wear a helmet." I asked him how that
would help protect his collarbone in the future and he became
indignant.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>> And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your
> >>> service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts
> >>> where they would do more good?
> >>>
> >>> Think of the Children!
> >>
> >> Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and
> >> insulting?
> >>
> >
> > Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up.
> >
> > I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults
> > are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using
> > them in future.
>
> I think you are a hypocrite for jumping into an exchange in which you
> previously had not participated just to throw out a gratuitous insult,
when
> just today you've repeatedly chastised others for {wait for it} posting
> insults in response to insults.
>

Where is the insult?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My starting position (in these threads) is exactly the same as my current
> position: namely, that wearing a helmet while road cycling and mountain
> biking is a very smart thing to do. It can lessen both the likelihood and
> severity of injury in the event of the types of falls that can happen to
> even the most careful and experienced cyclist.
>

Why would you not claim then, that wearing a helmet while walking is even
smarter thing to do - the chance of injury is greater?

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?

 

[jtaylor]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorni wrote:
> >
> > The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious"
> > riders).
> >


>
> However the evidence is that the "serious" cyclists have the lowest risk
> of injury. The data from five studies* is that the accidents per
> million miles (average annual miles) is 550 (580) for elementary school
> student, 510 (600) for college students, 340 (814) for commuters, 113
> (2,400) for League of American Bicyclists and 66 (2000) for Cyclists'
> Touring Club members. So the serious cyclists have the lowest accident
> rate, the inverse of your proposition
>
> * Chlapecka et al 1975; Schupack and Driessen 1976; Aultman-Hall and
> Kaltenecker 1998; Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1998
>
> --


Oooops.

Classic helmet zealot error.

 

[GaryG]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
> >
> > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>
> For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking,
> running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which
> have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another.
>
> And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by the
> pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far
between.

"faff"? - I'm not familiar with that term and dictionary.com was no help.
If you're implying that wearing a helmet is a painful experience for you,
perhaps you should try a different model...most modern helmets are hardly
noticeable once properly adjusted. As for the "pain of not wearing
it"...that would seem to be making my point, so I assume you've misspoken.

>
> If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing
> for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch cycling
> population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they cycle
> more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head injury
> rates).
>
> > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
> > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
> > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not
wear
> > one?
>
> So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk.

Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk
of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, martial arts, American
football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is
pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their
ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational
folks.

GG

> You
> wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your head
> against the door pillar where the seatbelt mounts with and without a
> helmet. Which hurts more? Without the helmet, I guess, so you wear it
> in the car because it will mitigate risk? You've even got air
> conditioning and no work to do, so it makes even less sense not to than
> on a bike.
>
> 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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

On 30 May 2006 15:40:00 -0700, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Ring me up when stateside, boyo.
>
>This reminds me of a friend. She went to college in the US and was
>invited to go skiing. 'we ski a lot and are quite good' said her hosts.
>"Do you ski much?' 'I can ski but I am not particularly good' was the
>reply.
>
>So off they went to some resort or other just up the road. Off down the
>black run. So my friend takes it quite casual and gentle, enjoying the
>run down without pushing it at all. Then turns round to see her hosts
>slowly picking their way down. "I thought you said you wern't
>particularly good?' they said when they got to the bottom. "Not by
>Norwegian standards I'm not" was the reply.
>
>..d

Dear David,

Back in the early '70's, a lot of really, really hateful UK observed
trials riders would craftily combine vacations with expense accounts
and fly out to Colorado to stomp the bejesus out of the best riders in
the Rocky Mountain Trials Association.

(We suspected that the UK riders got the idea from the Californians,
who also enjoyed coming out to Colorado and doing much the same thing
to us.)

(We did it once to the New Mexican Trials Association.)

I remember earnestly asking Rob Edwards (a Yorkshire farmer, I think)
whether he meant to use the low line or the high line up a nasty rocky
creek section. I figured that Edwards would reveal some subtle secret
that would explain why going on top of the rocks or down in between
them was better in general.

"Oh, the high line, of course," Edwards said, looking surprised at my
foolish question, and walked back down to his machine to demonstrate
the point.

I stood in front of a convenient waist-high rock that gave me a
perfect view of where the UK expert was going to come up the gully.

Boy, I thought as Edwards came charging up the rocks, he's going way
too fast--

"Get out of the way!"

His idea of the high line turned out to be the impossible rock I was
standing in front of. He went right up it, clean as a whistle.

I've been suspicious of you guys ever since then.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Kevan Smith]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm reminded of an acquaintance who broke his collarbone riding and
> that made him decide to "always wear a helmet." I asked him how that
> would help protect his collarbone in the future and he became
> indignant.

I was thinking something similar earlier. Since collarbone fractures are
by far a more common cycling injury (anecdotally), why hasn't anyone
developed some sort of protective gear for it? And, what would it look
like? It might be so bulky and hot as to spoil the fun of riding on a
warm enough day. Sort of like a lid.

--
fneep

 

[Kevan Smith]

In article <[email protected]>,
Richard <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see
> is flatness.

That seems dubious.

--
fneep

 

[GaryG]

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
> > > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
> > > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
> > > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that
went
> > > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
> > > >enough evidence for me.
> > >
> > > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
> >
> > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
> >
>
> Gloves also mitigate against scrapes and such, as do kneepads, elbow
guards,
> and so on; but you don't see them required by law.

Who here is advocating for mandatory helmet wearing?

You AHZ's always seem to be attempting to shift the debate. This thread was
discussing the relative risks/benefits of helmet wearing...nobody has said
anything about mandatory helmet laws.

>
> At least not yet.
>
> Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping
> compulsion. Beware.

That sounds like paranoia to me.

GG

 

[GaryG]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
> >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
> >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
> >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went
> >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
> >> >enough evidence for me.
> >>
> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
> >
> >They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>
> The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair,
> etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily
> worth preventing.

I guess my experience with them is different than yours.

Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head).

Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps
and pads and they're good to go.

Mess up hair? Not a problem for me .

Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. Even
on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very
slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem).

As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack
of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet.

As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I
disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a
risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece
of my cycling kit).

>
> I think you could wear soft-padding like skiers and BMX riders do on
> the road bike -- that'd help prevent scrapes and bruises too. Do you?
> I can send you some links to places to get them if you don't already.
>
> >
> >> That's quite different than the claims of helmets frequently
> >> preventing serious injury and death.
> >
> >Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
> >certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
> >lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
> >one?
>
> Because the risk is remote. Wearing a strong helmet in a car will
> also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear
> one?

Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air
bags).

GG

>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[GaryG]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> > No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who
> > who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking
> > down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous
> > conditions in rush hour traffic.
>
> The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally
> pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer
> serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking.

What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on
average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that their
rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway, that
would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to.

> It's also a
> matter of public record that pedestrian serious injuries have a greater
> proportion of head injuries than cyclists. So that's what I'm convinced
> of.

Why do you suppose that is? Are cyclists so much safer? Or, could it be
that the head injuries for both cases are primarily due to being struck by
cars, and that cyclists with their higher average speeds suffer less from
the differential speeds (e.g., a ped walking at 3 mph being struck by a 30
mph car would suffer more trauma than a cyclist travelling 15 mph being
struck by the same car...assuming an "overtaking" scenario).

GG

> While you like to think you are "only discussing cycling", what the real
> issue is is how to deal with risks. It makes no consistent sense at all
> to wear a helmet for one mildly risky activity but not another where
> risks and consequences are similar (and demonstrably similar through
> public records, whatever your intuition may tell you).
>
> 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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[GaryG]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20
> years and have been hit by cars twice.
>
> Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the middle
> of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly across the
> road from a cross street through the group of riders. How lucky can you
> be.
>
> In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike and
> landed by hitting my head on the curbing.
>
> The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the
> air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It
> must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely
> across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing.
> The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was
> stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and
> fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. But
> I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet
> saved my life.
>
> The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same
> street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop sign
> and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike and I
> was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. This
> must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest of my
> body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my right
> leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of bruises. My
> helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was happy to
> replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life.
>
> I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two
> things I take away from these incidents:
>
> 1. Stay off of that street
>
> 2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home.
>
> Roland
>
> Dover, NH
> ebent.com
>

Blasphemer!!! How dare you bring your personal experience with the
ostensible injury reducing benefits of a helmet into this hallowed
intellectual discussion?

Since you've raised the issue, be prepared to hear that:

1) You're a very poor cyclist. "Real" cyclists never get hit by cars, or
fall down.

2) Your injuries were worse than they would otherwise have been due to the
presence of the helmet on your head (rotational forces increased due to
additional circumference and weight, etc., etc.). Be thankful that you're
still alive given your ridiculous choice in headgear.

3) You would have survived those head impacts just as well, if not better,
if you had been wearing a proper cotton cycling cap (or, better yet, nothing
at all).

4) You've clearly not studied the available research which proves (to some
AHZ stalwarts anyway) that wearing helmets increases the risk of head
injuries (unless you wear one while showering).

With tongue firmly in cheek (and thanks for sharing some real world
experience)...

GG

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
> "population statistics".
>
> You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a
> given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film
> or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad.

But reviews are singular opinions, not population statistics.
Furthermore, while my enjoyment of a film or meal is a subjective
experience, getting killed or injured isn't.

There are undoubtedly people in the world that have been in a train
crash but not a car crash. According to your "logic", they are taking
their safety best into account in future if they travel by car. While I
realise human nature is such that people will probably do that, it means
they have psychological issues or are innumerate, rather than they are
safer.

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/