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

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.

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

Where did I suggest that?

>
>> 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.

You need a tinfoil helemt.

>
>> 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).

Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.

>
>> 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.

Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.

>
>> 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.

Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
goalposts and creating a stir.

Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
at all. You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> 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.
>

Hmm....one of the "dangers" often cited is the helmet "sticking" to the
pavement after impact. The cloth covered styrofoam helmets of ca. 1988
were likely more prone to that than the later "microshell" helmets
(although the helmet makers never came right out and said so, the
"microshell"s real purpose was to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
sticking-to-the-pavement problem).

Also, the truly useless Skid-lid was in (for the time) relatively
widespread use ca. 1988.


I also wonder where the "8 million" sample size came from. What was the
demographic?
Prior to ~ 1990, I knew, first hand, of only three (yes, three)
cyclists who wore helmets (one V-1 Pro and two cloth covered foam
shells). And I hung around with alot of cyclists.


> > 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.
>

If you want to take a swipe at Mr. Quark, grow some balls and do it
directly.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] writes:

>>> 1) faster
>> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
>> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
>
> Oh for gods sake.

Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
/should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
If not, why not?

> Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
> is whether a helmet can be beneficial.

So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?

> Certainly I would consider
> wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
> netherlands cycle track.

The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far better
suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to accidents in
fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you can't expect any
beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor vehicle collisions
create. It's also my experience that there is far more close overtaking
on a fietspad than on a road.

> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.

Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's from
better luck. We don't know.

> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
> in this case.

It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to wear
one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear one
too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're not
the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater proportion of
ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the cyclists, so
they're better candidates.

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/

 

[Hadron Quark]

ps

Was just browsing some long distance touring notes:

http://www.bikechina.com/ct-johnmchale1.html

"I still haven¡Çt decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along
the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don¡Çt let
bees fly into your mouth"¡Ä?? I went over head-first, and it¡Çs obvious
that my helmet saved my life."

so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to
the original question:

What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt?

... then the answer is clear.

Compulsory? Not for me thanks.

But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only
himself to blame".


--

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>
>>>> 1) faster
>>> Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
>>> When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
>> Oh for gods sake.
>
> Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
> wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
> /should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
> sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
> If not, why not?

I am not complaining. I am pointing out that you seem incapable of
reaching a conclusion because you fall over yourself mumbling the
bleeding obvious.

>
>> Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
>> is whether a helmet can be beneficial.
>
> So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?
>

I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. Some scree
runners do. What is your point other than to obfuscate and come across
as a bit of a bore?

>> Certainly I would consider
>> wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
>> netherlands cycle track.
>
> The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far
> better suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to
> accidents in fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you
> can't expect any beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor
> vehicle collisions create. It's also my experience that there is far
> more close overtaking on a fietspad than on a road.

Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
to move the goalposts dont you?

>
>> The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.
>
> Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's
> from better luck. We don't know.

And I dont really care : maybe you can take that offline and discuss it?
Since it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread : what you may or may
not have experienced.

>
>> Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
>> plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
>> in this case.
>
> It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
> wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
> one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're

Look at the title of this NG.

> not the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater
> proportion of ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the
> cyclists, so they're better candidates.

Statistics : you canprove anything with them.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Dear Tim,

I was wondering when someone would mention that point.

Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities
next to the bicycle data.

The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years,
with neither showing any reaction to massive increases in
bicycle helmet use.

Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously
injured or killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just
walking around is more dangerous than bicycling.

Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with
nothing but thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the
speed limit on solid pavement, but the airline industry has
some rather convincing statistics that mock my fear of
heights and the lurid pictures of plane crashes that kill a
hundred passengers in an instant.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
> error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.

Sane, and prone to lapses of judgement as anyone else. However,
I'm not stupid enough to blame Fate when it's my fault, and if I'm
"clipped by a hedge" then it's my fault. Hedges are stationary and
quite visible, thus they are not /too/ hard to avoid.

> Where did I suggest that?

When you said "And guess what : Ive never known a runner injured by
anything other than self punishment"

> Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.

No: lots of cyclists use SPuDs or similar, many of them have had at
least one fall due to not getting out in time, they don't have a
reputation of getting people hurt.

> Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
> real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.

Let's do that. Let's look at the accident figures for cyclists vs.
pedestrians across the whole population. We see the cyclists
aren't particularly more prone to getting hurt, and when they do
they're slightly less prone to head injuries. So why wear a helmet?

> Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
> goalposts and creating a stir.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I, and many cyclists of
my aquaintance, do not make a habit of falling off our bikes when
overtaken or subject to cross winds. You may wobble a little, but
do you actually fall off that often?

> Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
> at all.

So why is there no change in serious head injuries as helmet
wearing rates rise anywhere you look at whole populations?

> You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
> should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
> wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.

But we're looking at whole populations, which take into account
every cyclist, the good ones, the bad ones, and the ones in
between. If helmets helped then the head injury rates would come
down as helmet wearing went up. It doesn't, anywhere you want to
look where there's data.

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/

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> I was wondering when someone would mention that point.
>
> Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities next to
> the bicycle data.
>
> The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years, with
> neither showing any reaction to massive increases in bicycle helmet
> use.

That's a good point- there has been no "85%" drop in head injuries among
cyclists as helmets have been adopted. And in one country that passed a
mandatory helmet law (Australia) the rate of head injuries went up. At
the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
effective.

> Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously injured or
> killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just walking around is
> more dangerous than bicycling.
>
> Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with nothing but
> thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the speed limit on solid
> pavement, but the airline industry has some rather convincing
> statistics that mock my fear of heights and the lurid pictures of
> plane crashes that kill a hundred passengers in an instant.

While I have no fear of flying per se, I hate to fly because airports
suck so very badly.

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> At
> the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
> effective.
>
>
And that is about the limit of what can rationally infer from the data.
All the other breast-beating is speculation.

Rick

 

[NYC XYZ]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> 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?


The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
guards -- the works?

 

[NYC XYZ]

He'd already quoted you the British Medical Journal.



Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
> --

 

[NYC XYZ]

Eric 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?
>
> Any idea why nobody thought of this before?


'Cause it's called a "straw man argument."

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 10 May 2006 07:58:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>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.

I'd speculate that the typical helmet in use in 1988 was more
protective than helmets nowadays in terms of dealing with impacts --
as you said they were more substantial. But good helmets today seem
to fit much better, which might help with protection.

So which is safer overall? I'm not sure.

JT

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

"Oh for gods sake" not a complaint? Really?

If it's obvious that there's a speed crossover between those on foot and
those on bikes then it makes sense that speed is not a reason to always
be wearing a hat on a bike but not on foot. Yet you have suggested it is.

> I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them.

So why respond to Cathy when she asks why there is a difference between
her running and cycling as regards wearing a helmet?

> Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
> to move the goalposts dont you?

The primary difference between a fietspad and a busy road is the motor
traffic. So the primary accident difference in terms of what might
happen will be being hit by a vehicle or not. As far as minor falls go
there's a lot more close overtaking and less room for manoeuvre on a
fietspad.

>> It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
>> wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
>> one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're
>
> Look at the title of this NG.

So if we're talking to cyclists, we say that despite them being at no
more particular risk than other groups, they should wear protective
helmets that the other groups don't?
What about people that do both, like the poster who started this little
sub-thread does?

> Statistics : you canprove anything with them.

No you can't: you can /try/ and mislead but if the methodology is
published you *will* be found out in time if you're trying to pull a
fast one (for example, 85% effectiveness of cycle helmets).

Your statement above amounts to "La la la I can't hear you" in lieu of
actually looking into the matter as objectively as you can. That
doesn't do /anybody/ any favours.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> "I still haven¡Çt decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along
> the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don¡Çt let
> bees fly into your mouth"¡Ä?? I went over head-first, and it¡Çs obvious
> that my helmet saved my life."

This is "obvious" to a lot of people, to such a ridiculous extent it
merits a headline page at the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation website.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Not as obvious as he might seem to think.

> so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to
> the original question:
>
> What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt?
>
> .. then the answer is clear.

Though in a court of law with expert witnesses we hear from Brian
Walker, who runs the company that test helmets for meeting their
specifications in the UK that:

"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made."

> But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only
> himself to blame".

No, he'll reply as above, showing how your data points aren't quite as
good as you seem to think.

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/

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

The site is too frustrating to navigate without Java
script enabled; and I will not enable it. I am not even
interested in trying to find an email address to express
my preferences.

--
Michael Press

 

[GaryG]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
> you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
> guards -- the works?

There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll.

Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet
wear?

GG

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:49:10 -0700, "GaryG"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

[snip]

>> The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
>> you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
>> guards -- the works?
>
>There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll.
>
>Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet
>wear?
>
>GG

Dear Gary,

Assuming in this tangled thread that you're asking NYC XYZ
who is forcing him to wear a helmet . . .

New York
State Law Passengers under 5 1989
State Law Riders under 14* 1994/04
Eastchester* Under 19 2004
Erie County Parks All ages 1993
Greenburgh All ages 1994
Guilderland Under 14 1992
Rockland County All ages 1992
Onondaga County Under 18 2001
Suffolk County 14 to 17 2000

http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm

(That list of mandatory helmet laws in New York state may be
out of date.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter Clinch]

GaryG wrote:

> So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground
> while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer
> than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet?

I don't see where you inferred that.

The main point is if you're not in the habit of banging your head on the
ground at all then whether you're wearing a helmet or a cap isn't really
an issue. And cyclists (at least roadgoing a to b cyclists) don't hit
their heads against the ground that often, not particularly more than
classes of people that feel no need to wear helmets, so why should
cyclists feel the need?

If you're especially worried about banging your head on the ground and
the effect it would have there's little reason not to wear one on foot.
Especially if you use stairs. Plenty of people admitted to hospital
after trips and falls, some of them go straight to the morgue. Yet
nobody bothers, because they know the risks don't justify the bother.
Why is cycling different?

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]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
>
> > So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground
> > while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly
safer
> > than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet?
>
> I don't see where you inferred that.

Frank impled that in the bit I've copied below:

Hadron:
> > Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
> > plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
> > in this case.
>
Frank:
> If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak
> capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But
> population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case.
> Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not
> beneficial.

>
> The main point is if you're not in the habit of banging your head on the
> ground at all then whether you're wearing a helmet or a cap isn't really
> an issue. And cyclists (at least roadgoing a to b cyclists) don't hit
> their heads against the ground that often, not particularly more than
> classes of people that feel no need to wear helmets, so why should
> cyclists feel the need?

No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground, any more than
auto drivers are in the habit of driving into walls or other vehicles at
speed...but, clearly these things do happen and in both cases appropriate
safety devices are routinely employed, though rarely needed.

In my own case, in the last 15 years of regular cycling my head has impacted
the ground on several occasions (mostly while mountain biking). In one
case, I took a high-side fall at about 20 mph when my front tire got caught
in a rain rut, and the impact to the left side of my head was hard enough to
fracture the helmet's styrofoam structure. Since this was on a rock-strewn
trail, I was most pleased that: a) I didn't suffer a concussion (presumably
because the impact forces were appropriately absorbed by the helmet), and
b) my scalp wasn't lacerated by the rocks (something that a cotton cap would
not have prevented). FWIW, as a follicly challenged individual, the
protection against lacerations is of particular importance to me.

>
> If you're especially worried about banging your head on the ground and
> the effect it would have there's little reason not to wear one on foot.
> Especially if you use stairs. Plenty of people admitted to hospital
> after trips and falls, some of them go straight to the morgue. Yet
> nobody bothers, because they know the risks don't justify the bother.
> Why is cycling different?

Ummm....we're talking about cycling here. You can argue against wearing
helmets while walking in another group .

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

>
> 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/