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

[GaryG]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

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
>

 

[[email protected]]

GaryG wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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 ****. 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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!
>
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.

 

[[email protected]]

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]

[email protected] 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. 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
>

--

 

[[email protected]]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] 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.
>
> Read up on Occams Razor.

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]

[email protected] writes:

>
> 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]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>>
>> 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?

Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 May 2006 22:10:38 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>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

Dear Frank,

Reading the two inane replies so far, you have my sympathy
and my admiration for your patience.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Eric]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> 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?

Any idea why nobody thought of this before?

 

[Bill]

Sorni wrote:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).

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]

[email protected] wrote:

> 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]

[email protected] wrote:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
> > [email protected] 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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?
>
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 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]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> [email protected] 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)]

Per Cathy Kearns:
>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

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> [email protected] 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." 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

 

[[email protected]]

(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]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > [email protected] 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>