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



GaryG wrote:
> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:h%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >
> > "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > 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).
> > >

> >
> > How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"?
> >
> > The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more
> > dangerous.
> >

>
> Were that the case, American lawyers would be lining up to sue the
> manufacturers (they do for every other thing, real or imagined). That they
> are not leads me (and most others) to conclude that there is no evidence to
> support your contention.
>


Bingo! If nothing else proves the "helmets increase risk" lie is pure
BS, the lack of litigation surely does so. If there were even a sliver
of fact to it, the ambulance chasers would be all over it like flies on
****.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> And how real is "Tony Raven"? How real is that email addy? Does anyone
> know?
>


Feel free to Google me or Peter Clinch or JFT - we've either gone to
elaborate lengths to create false web identities or we're real - and you
can see whether we are qualified to comment on helmet research, cycling,
medical matters etc. You can even see me wearing a helmet from the days
when I "believed" in them.

Where as you, Sorni, Pirrero and the rest are virtually invisible as to
your credentials. I know you'll fix my derailleur real cheap but beyond
that, zip.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Quoting Hadron Quark <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:
>>Quoting Hadron Quark <[email protected]>:
>>>Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
>>>jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.

>>Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I
>>suggest.

>What point? I dont wish to discuss wearing a helmet for anything other
>than cycling.


Why not? Are you somehow immune to head injuries at other times? That must
be very convenient.

"If you wear a helmet while cycling, why don't you wear one while doing
other things equally prone to head injuries?" is a very obvious question
that demands an answer. Saying you only want to discuss cycling is pure
evasion.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting GaryG <[email protected]>:
>"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>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.).


These activities are much more dangerous than cycling - motorcycling, for
example, is more than ten times as dangerous. Why not discuss similarly
dangerous activities such as driving? Do you wear a helmet then?

>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.


So you are suggesting the entire population of the Netherlands is
irrational?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting Hadron Quark <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:
>>Quoting GaryG <[email protected]>:
>>>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>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?

>>Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes.

>That would be a different thread : it is helmets being discussed here -
>for cycling.


Obvious evasion. Why not, when discussing helmets, compare them to other
protective gear?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting GaryG <[email protected]>:
>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).


How do scrapes and bruises prevent you using your head? Occasionally they
can be painful; but a scrape or bruise on a knee can make pedalling
considerably more awkward, and legs are certainly mission critical. You
still haven't told us why you don't wear BMX knee and elbow pads to
prevent scrapes and bruises.

>>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).


Dodge; _with_ those devices, head injury rates amongst drivers are
comparable to cyclists. So why no driving helmet? You could wear a much
more robust one, too...
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
GaryG wrote:
>>
>> A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a
>> day.

>
> Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of
> death while driving? And, how about the injury rate?
>


Its about one death per 20 million miles of cycling. How long would it
take you to cycle that far. Its much much lower than the risk of death
from natural causes.

>
> And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling.


And every day many more people are injured and killed by trips, slips,
falls and assaults, all or which would have been mitigated by their
wearing a helmet.

In the list of risky activities bicycling is right down there with a
whole range of other everyday activities that do not require special
protective clothing. So why single cycling out?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Quoting [email protected] <[email protected]>:
>I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet
>saved my life.
>replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life.


Oooh, _two_ life threatening incidents. You must be very unlucky; I've
never had even _one_ accident in which, helmetless, I would have suffered
any serious head injury, let alone been killed.

The sheer number of saved-my-life stories illustrates they are nonsense.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
In article <E2q*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Quoting [email protected] <[email protected]>:
> >I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet
> >saved my life.
> >replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life.

>
> Oooh, _two_ life threatening incidents. You must be very unlucky; I've
> never had even _one_ accident in which, helmetless, I would have suffered
> any serious head injury, let alone been killed.
>
> The sheer number of saved-my-life stories illustrates they are nonsense.


Not really; it just illustrates that people don't realize just how tough
a head actually is, and how hard it is to kill someone with a straight
head impact. In the vast majority of those cases, they would most
likely have received a concussion of some greater or lesser severity (or
perhaps just a nasty bruise or cut). That doesn't mean the helmet
didn't reduce the severity of the injury, though.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
David Kerber wrote:
>
> That doesn't mean the helmet
> didn't reduce the severity of the injury, though.
>


Recognising that optimal performance removes no more than 10-15% of the
energy needed to fracture a skull.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:u%[email protected]...
>> 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.
>>

>
> Where is the insult/"put-down"?


I guess John meant "lame" in a complimetary sense. (After his other
sarcastic comment, of course.)
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

> >
> > Where is the insult/"put-down"?

>
> I guess John meant "lame" in a complimetary sense. (After his other
> sarcastic comment, of course.)
>



Can you not distinguish between a comment on the quality of an argument and
an insult?

Let me give you some examples of the latter:

"asshole"

"jackass"

"pompous gasbag"

Perhaps you'll recognise them.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kevan Smith wrote:
> > 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.

>
> What seems dubious? That the Earth seems flat, or that some people
> still believe it? People believe in all kinds of ridiculous things
> including alien abduction and the faking by Nasa of the moon landings.


How to distinguish between those who believe the Earth is
flat and those who only profess to believe that the Earth
is flat? I never met or heard from one of the former.

--
Michael Press
12345678911234567892123456789312345678941234567895123456789612345678971234567898
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzAB
 
Michael Press wrote:
> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote:


> > What seems dubious? That the Earth seems flat, or that some people
> > still believe it? People believe in all kinds of ridiculous things
> > including alien abduction and the faking by Nasa of the moon landings.

>
> How to distinguish between those who believe the Earth is
> flat and those who only profess to believe that the Earth
> is flat? I never met or heard from one of the former.


How indeed? I have the same difficulty with a creationist I sometimes
cross swords with on a listserver. He says the Earth is around 6,000
years old. He appears sincere, and it's possible he really does
believe it, but I'm not convinced he isn't just attracted to the
glamour of taking an extreme position.

--
Dave...
 
On Wed, 31 May 2006 06:07:53 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> No one wears a helmet in the shower.

>
>I would if I were showering at 30 kph in traffic!


A helmet affords precious little protection in the case of a traffic
accident. They are only built to protect at speeds approximating that
of walking.

They would give more adequate protection to the head in the event of a
slip & fall in the shower, but one would have to exercise extreme
caution when said helmet were removed to facilitate cleaning one's
hair.

>
>> No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street.


But aren't more people hurt while crossing the street than while
cycling?

Indiana Mike

>>
>> 37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet
>> compulsion laws.

>
>Who's talking about compulsion (besides you AHZ's)?
>
>GG
>
>>
>>
>>

>
 
On Wed, 31 May 2006 15:31:31 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>GaryG wrote:
>>>
>>> A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a
>>> day.

>>
>> Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of
>> death while driving? And, how about the injury rate?
>>

>
>Its about one death per 20 million miles of cycling. How long would it
>take you to cycle that far. Its much much lower than the risk of death
>from natural causes.
>
>>
>> And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling.

>
>And every day many more people are injured and killed by trips, slips,
>falls and assaults, all or which would have been mitigated by their
>wearing a helmet.
>
>In the list of risky activities bicycling is right down there with a
>whole range of other everyday activities that do not require special
>protective clothing. So why single cycling out?


There's money, good money, to be made. And it's pretty obvious that
the 'common sense factor' helps the effort along.

Indiana Mike
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Cathy Kearns wrote:
> >
> > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other
> > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior
> > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
> > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age
> > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to
> > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults
> > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)
> >
> >

>
> Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose
> mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and
> there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit.
>


I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when
she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a
helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later,
that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but
did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had
to wear a helmet? That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't
have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons.
My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may
be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But
otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . .
that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy
to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride
just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie.
 
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Cathy Kearns wrote:
> > >
> > > Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The

other
> > > decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered

junior
> > > high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
> > > colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding

at age
> > > 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away

to
> > > school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California

adults
> > > (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)
> > >
> > >

> >
> > Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose
> > mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and
> > there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit.
> >

>
> I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when
> she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a
> helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later,
> that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but
> did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had
> to wear a helmet?
>
> That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't
> have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons.
> My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may
> be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But
> otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . .
> that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy
> to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride
> just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie.
>


Yes, she did say she was quitting because she didn't want to wear the
helmet. It's not that helmets look dorky. It's that even after you take
the helmet off for the day you look dorky until you can restyle (blow-dry,
hot iron, whatever) your hair. And that is not an option at school. And no,
it's not like she got to drive to school instead.

I know real helmet enthusiast tend to poo-poo the hair thing. But I
remember asking my hair stylist if she could recommend a hair style that
would withstand a bike helmet. Note, I'm not that picky about hair style,
heck, I drive a convertable, wind blown is just fine. I was going on a tour
of France, and when I got off the bike to tour the towns and cathedrals I
just wanted to look presentable. She had no answer at all. She had a few
other clients that were semi pro lady cyclists, and even the pony tail look
still gave them matted ridges after a long ride.

After my daughter gave up her bike I started thinking about it. And I found
that, since I have car keys, if I had just showered and finally wrestled my
hair into submission I would drive rather than ride my bike to do errands,
even when it would obviously be faster to ride the bike. (We have a ton of
cut through paths around here, routes on a bike are often much shorter than
the same route in a car. Also parking around shops and schools are such
that parking a car would require a much longer walk than parking a bike.)
So then I started to think about the helmet, and whether I needed it to run
errands on the same streets I'm willing to walk or run on without a helmet,
and decided if the deciding factor for biking or driving was really the
helmet, I'd just leave the helmet at home and ride the bike. The safety
factor of the helmet was offset by the extra exercise I was getting.

Note: when I do personal risk assessments I take into account I've been
biking for many years, including the 4+ years I went to college in Davis. I
have never fallen and hit my head while on a bike. I have hit my head on a
curb while running and knocked my self out taking a flying header into the
ice playing broom ball. Neither time was I wearing a helmet. Neither time
did I die. (Though the injuries from the fall while running did look
suspiciously like I wiped out on a bike, road rash all the way down one
side...) Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer,
figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I
don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are
so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that.
 
Cathy Kearns wrote:
> Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer,
> figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I
> don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are
> so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that.
>


You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning
heading in soccer
http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
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.
>

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear
to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *