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

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by NYC XYZ, May 8, 2006.

  1. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
    > data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.


    So does a baseball cap. The difference in fact isn't large enough between a
    bicycle crash helmet and a baseball cap to make much difference. If you WANT
    to wear one that's perfectly OK with me. If you want to insist they work I
    suggest you actually learn something. Start at the Snell Memorial
    Foundation's web site. They will explain if you can understand fairly simple
    mathematics, that their standard is pitifully inadequate for purposes of
    simple protection in a dead stop fall-over.

    After you finished with that you can look at the CPSC helmet standard and
    you will see that standard is significantly BELOW the Snell standard.

    Now go tune in to the one of the latest issues of Consumer Reports and
    WHEEEEEEE - MOST of the helmets BARELY make the lower standard, a
    significant number don't even pass that lower standard and the most
    expensive helmets are worse that the cheaper ones.

    Funny how education might modify the mind of someone who actually has one.

    > Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect
    > against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour?
    > Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed.


    If you're trying to protect your hand from a chainsaw with a glove then the
    answer is NO. Go that? The BEST gloves won't protect your hand from a chain
    saw. Or is it your suggestion that we redefine a gauntlet as a glove so that
    you can feel clever?

    If you're suggesting that gloves on a bicyclist are not significant
    protection for your hands you are incorrect.

    A bicycle helmet in the vast majority of serious or fatal bicycle accidents
    has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER!!!

    If you're trying to sell helmets as mediating minor head injuries then
    indeed we have something to discuss. Perhaps THAT is the reason that you
    wear a helmet? After all we have all seen the Bell and Giro ads - "Bicycle
    Helmets Help Reduce Minor Injuries".

    > Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would
    > you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it?


    I can honestly say that in my 45 years of riding motorcycles all over the
    US, road racing, desert racing, cross country, touring, Safety Director for
    the American Federation of Motorcyclists, bicycling for the last 20 years,
    off road, on road, road racing etc. I have NEVER heard of nor seen a single
    head injury caused by a big stick covered in tar and gravel.

    And I would be really interested in your discription of this accident in
    which a helmet apparently saved your life.
     


  2. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the
    > issues"???
    > The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
    > best.


    Well, the San Jose Mercury printed a story many years ago from the Director
    of Advertising for Specialized helmets and he was laughing and said that
    they had a tiny advertsing budget because the safety freaks were more than
    happy to spend all their own money to promote helmets.
     
  3. Hadron Quark

    Hadron Quark Guest

    "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:

    > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
    > to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
    > (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
    > has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.


    Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
    handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
    so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
    with totally different accident results.
     
  4. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Hadron Quark wrote:
    > "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
    >> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
    >> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
    >> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.

    >
    > Why would you wear a helmet when running?


    For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
    level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,
    since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running
    and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing
    one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and
    then pushed as a solution in search of a problem.

    > You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables


    Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms
    getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been cycling
    almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that to be a
    problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you do?

    > you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    > mirror


    About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since
    mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant?

    The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that
    encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing by,
    nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that wearing
    helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is perceived
    as "safe").

    > Its totally different risk factors
    > with totally different accident results.


    Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors
    should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be
    much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the
    energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are
    built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing worse.
    I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and falling
    (a primary cause of ER head injuries) more than runners.

    Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists: in
    typical roadgoing use, not much at all.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  5. On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
    >handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    >mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
    >so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
    >with totally different accident results.


    Totally? People get hit by cars running.

    JT

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

    Hadron Quark Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
    >>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    >>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
    >>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
    >>with totally different accident results.

    >
    > Totally? People get hit by cars running.


    Err, I know.

    But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
    straw man.
     
  7. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Hadron Quark wrote:

    > But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
    > straw man.


    "Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
    similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
    road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
    particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
    head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
    expected to usefully work against?

    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/
     
  8. Hadron Quark

    Hadron Quark Guest

    Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

    > Hadron Quark wrote:
    >> "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
    >>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
    >>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
    >>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.

    >> Why would you wear a helmet when running?

    >
    > For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
    > level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,


    eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
    doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
    known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
    etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
    drainage grates and gravel etc.

    > since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running
    > and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing
    > one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and
    > then pushed as a solution in search of a problem.


    Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
    ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
    considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
    it. They were invented for a reason you know.

    >
    >> You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables

    >
    > Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms
    > getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been
    > cycling almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that
    > to be a problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you
    > do?


    When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
    case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
    I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
    certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
    someone just walked out in front of me. Ive had a case where a dog
    jumped at me and my reactions were to punch the dog as I fell rather
    than curl up in the foetus and prtect my skull as I crashed to the
    ground with the pedal jamming into my upper thigh. Not always of course
    : I dont deal in extremes to support my cause.

    >
    >> you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    >> mirror

    >
    > About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since
    > mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant?


    Are you just being obstinate? The clip of the wing mirror
    was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
    nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
    runner would. In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
    with it. A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
    momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
    etc etc etc I wont go on. There is no comparison between running and
    cycling. Well, minor.

    >
    > The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that
    > encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing
    > by, nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that
    > wearing helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is
    > perceived as "safe").


    Anecdotal being the word. There is also evidence which suggests that the
    helmet is a sign to the driver to consider the fact that flesh and blood
    is up ahead and needs protecting. Just balancing the books on that
    one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
    high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
    you the right of way with a cheery wave.

    >
    >> Its totally different risk factors
    >> with totally different accident results.

    >
    > Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors
    > should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be
    > much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the
    > energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are
    > built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing
    > worse. I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and
    > falling (a primary cause of ER head injuries) more than runners.
    >
    > Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists:
    > in typical roadgoing use, not much at all.


    You clearly have strong views : so do I - I dont wear a helmet because I
    dont like them and the risks are low since I'm a defensive cyclist of
    many, many thousands of miles experience.

    I'm yet to see anything,
    however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
    to safety. Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
    curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
    helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
    anything other than beneficial.
     
  9. Hadron Quark

    Hadron Quark Guest

    Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

    > Hadron Quark wrote:
    >
    >> But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
    >> straw man.

    >
    > "Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
    > similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
    > road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
    > particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
    > head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
    > expected to usefully work against?


    1) faster
    2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
    3) higher
    4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
    5) more prone to slip stream
    6) more prone to cross winds

    Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.
     
  10. On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:50:17 +0200, Hadron Quark
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
    >>>handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    >>>mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
    >>>so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
    >>>with totally different accident results.

    >>
    >> Totally? People get hit by cars running.

    >
    >Err, I know.
    >
    >But to equate the two is simply ridiculous


    No.

    > and attempting to build a
    >straw man.


    No -- it's attempting to get people to think about risk more
    comprehensively..

    JT


    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  11. On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:04:58 +0200, Hadron Quark
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> Hadron Quark wrote:
    >>> "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
    >>>> to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
    >>>> (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
    >>>> has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
    >>> Why would you wear a helmet when running?

    >>
    >> For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
    >> level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,

    >
    >eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
    >doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
    >known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
    >etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
    >drainage grates and gravel etc.


    I won't comment on runners specifically, but in my country tens of
    thousands of pedestrians of all sorts are hit by cars and many
    thousands are killed each year. And many people are afraid to walk
    along suburban and rural roads because of the danger of cars hitting
    them. Some cyclists feel the same way too. So, in terms of general
    safety regarding cars, there are a lot of related issues regarding
    people on foot and on bikes. To claim they are completely unrelated
    is bizarre.

    JT

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

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while
    > > pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route,
    > > on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more
    > > often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a
    > > helmet when I go running.

    >
    > Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled
    > in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    > mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with
    > it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk
    > factors with totally different accident results.


    According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
    of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
    among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
    benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.
     
  13. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Hadron Quark wrote:

    > eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
    > doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
    > known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
    > etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
    > drainage grates and gravel etc.


    What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
    clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel then
    there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.

    As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run has
    ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?

    > Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
    > ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
    > considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
    > it. They were invented for a reason you know.


    Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
    cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to B
    utility road cycling.

    > When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
    > case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
    > I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
    > certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
    > someone just walked out in front of me.


    I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
    over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them saying
    they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that matter).

    > Are you just being obstinate?


    No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
    clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
    better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb is
    the safest place to be is even more widespread than the misapprehension
    that helmets will Save Your Life.

    > The clip of the wing mirror
    > was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
    > nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
    > runner would.


    No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to positioning.

    > In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
    > with it.


    "Should" != "Does"

    > A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
    > momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
    > etc etc etc I wont go on


    And will typically skid a little and then continue. A runner's probably
    more likely to lose their footing, ISTM.

    > one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
    > high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
    > you the right of way with a cheery wave.


    It does that for me, which suggests you're doing something wrong.

    > I'm yet to see anything,
    > however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
    > to safety.


    The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
    G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
    CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
    1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
    positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

    So now you have.

    > Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
    > curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
    > helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
    > anything other than beneficial.


    So how come in every legislature that has increased helmet wearing
    significantly through mandating their use, there is no apparent
    improvement in serious head injuries? Never mind the "how", that is
    what *has* happened.

    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/
     
  14. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Hadron Quark wrote:

    > 1) faster


    Runners can easily attain the speeds that are maximum for the bike
    helmet specification, some runners run faster than some cyclists.

    > 2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions


    But is Cathy's run on slippery/hazardous roads? There are many
    instances, especially in winter with road gritting, where the sidewalks
    are far more slippery than the roadway, so should runners be wearing
    helmets in winter if they run on the sidewalks?

    > 3) higher


    Not much, but depends on the bike. Even onb my bolt-upright Brompton
    I'm not as tall as a tall friend of mine: should basketball players
    routinely wear helmets?

    > 4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
    > 5) more prone to slip stream
    > 6) more prone to cross winds


    I'm prone to all of these but am not in the habit of (a) falling off or
    (b) banging my head. "More risk" is not the same as "must be acted
    against". Take two identical women, one in spike stilletos and one in
    Sensible Shoes. The former is taller and less stable, so according to
    the "logic" she should be wearing a helmet...

    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/
     
  15. Peter Clinch wrote:

    <snipped for clarity and brevity>

    > The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
    > G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
    > CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
    > 1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
    > positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
    >


    Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?
     
  16. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:

    > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?


    Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.

    And?

    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/
     
  17. Peter Clinch wrote:
    > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    >
    > > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

    >
    > Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.
    >
    > And?
    >
    >


    Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam
    "microshell" helmets were not yet on the market. There were styrofoam
    shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent
    entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very
    tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And
    the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but
    those weren't even helmets.

    The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
    the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?
     
  18. Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > Peter Clinch wrote:
    > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > >
    > > > Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

    > >
    > > Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.
    > >
    > > And?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam
    > "microshell" helmets were not yet on the market. There were styrofoam
    > shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent
    > entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very
    > tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And
    > the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but
    > those weren't even helmets.
    >
    > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
    > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?



    Of course, there were passionate defenders of all those helmets back
    then, too.

    Here are several pertinent points:

    1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use
    than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more
    protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to
    pavement than today's microshell hats.

    2) In those days, rabid helmet promotion had not taken hold. Thus,
    the people in helmets were closer to the "early adopters." There's a
    good probability that the early adopters of safety equipment are the
    most safety conscious people.

    3) 1988 is precisely when Thompson, Rivara et. al. were doing their
    "85%!!!!" study. If you really think those helmets were so different
    from todays (despite very similar certification tests) you should be
    among those arguing against every claim of "85%!!!!"

    Certainly, every study since 1988 (or it's publishing date, 1989) has
    found far less benefit for helmet use - even the larger one done by the
    same biased team. And the largest and least biased and most up-to-date
    studies are the ones that have actually found negative benefit
    (disbenefit, if you will) from helmet use.

    So if you prefer to reject the '80s information and go with 2006, let's
    all agree to do so. Let's go with
    http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:

    > Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988.


    Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078.
    Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got
    lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made
    to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened.

    > The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
    > the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?


    Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not,
    so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform
    to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear
    because they wouldn't do any harm.

    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/
     
  20. Hadron Quark

    Hadron Quark Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >> > I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while
    >> > pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route,
    >> > on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more
    >> > often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a
    >> > helmet when I go running.

    >>
    >> Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled
    >> in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
    >> mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with
    >> it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk
    >> factors with totally different accident results.

    >
    > According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
    > of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
    > among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
    > benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.


    So what? BTW, do these statistics correctly scale to relevant numbers
    involved in the "sport" or pastime? e.g everyone is at sometime a
    pedestrian : only a percentage are cyclists.

    Regardless,

    1) I choose not to wear a helmet
    2) I see no facts disproving that a helemt would, in a head collision,
    offer more protection than nothing at all.




    --
     
Loading...
Loading...