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



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?
 
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?
>
> --
 
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."
 
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
****************************
 
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/
 
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/
 
"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
 
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
 
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/
 
"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/
 
GaryG wrote:

> 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.

I still don't see where you picked up anything about the relative merits
of cotton caps, so again, I wonder where you inferred that?

> 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.

They also happen to pedestrians, who also happen to get killed by them
from time to time. Trips and falls kill ~350 folk under 75 in the UK
every year, so how come helmets aren't appropriate safety devices for them?

> 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).

My data specifically exclude MTBing and since it's an arena where people
are doing deliberately tricky things as a recreation rather than just
getting about on the roads it would be silly for me to try and persuade
you they're pointless off road, but also for you to draw on MTB
experience to say why you should wear one on.

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

Yes, I'm talking about cycling. I don't wear a helmet road cycling
because it's not very dangerous. It is similarly dangerous to walking,
which almost everyone does so it's a useful barometer of the degree to
which protective clothing is considered appropriate.

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

Gary, I wrote the first paragraph above. I did NOT write the second
paragraph. And in any case, neither paragraph says what you claim. I
think you need to slow down in your posting.


> 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.

Auto drivers are not in the habit of smashing their skulls into the
driver windows, or driver door frames, or B pillars, or roofs of their
cars, or other hard objects. Yet these items cause the largest number
of serious and fatal head injuries in America every year - despite
safety devices like seat belts, air bags etc.

The advertising industry has done a great job of selling massive
vehicles with exploding cushions, pretending a person is practically
invulnerable in such a thing. But such vehicles are still the number
one source of HI fatalities, killing those people inside them. In
other words, the impression created by the sellers is false.

The advertising industry has also done a great job of convincing people
that simple bike riding is a horrendous source of serious head injury.
And they've convinced many people that a very flimsy hat makes cyclists
practically invulnerable. But once again, the impression created by
the sellers is false.

Cycling is, very roughly, about as dangerous as motoring, even with a
bareheaded cyclist and an air-bagged motorist. Neither is very bad.
Putting a 14 mph helmet on the cyclist makes no detectable difference
in that fact. What you've been made to believe is false.

> 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).

If you're going to test your balancing skills and reflexes by bouncing
along rocky trails, that's one thing. Don't extrapolate to folks who
are riding on smooth roads.

There is much more similarity in risk between a city pedestrian and a
city cyclist (actually, the cyclist is much safer) than between an
adventurous mountain biker and a city cyclist.

- Frank Krygowski
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uW%[email protected]...
>
> No one is in the habit of banging their head on the ground,...
>

Umm...not meaning to rain on anybody's parade here, but the frequency at
which I bang my head on the ground while cycling--at least when considering
the potential finality of consequences--does qualify as a habit. I think its
the topography of the consequences that counts. If you kill yourself once,
it's an isolated incident. But kill yourself twice, and you go on record as
being remarkably habitual. Same with head banging--a couple or few times is
a nasty habit if ever there was one. Thus, over the decades, I've a
demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it.

And so I wear a helmet.

Mykal Crooks
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uW%[email protected]...
>
> 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.

Here's what we're getting at Gary - if you sit down on the ground and you
strike your head against the ground by swinging your head at it then indeed
a helmet will protect your head from such a injury better than a cotton
cycling cap. Maybe you've missed the thousands of times we've said that
helmets WILL probably protect you from minor injuries.

But in the sort of accidents in which cyclists are seriously injured or
killed the forces are so great that the helmet is maxed out and you might as
well wear the cotton cap for all the good it does you.

Now you might well say (and for the record most of us already assumed) that
there is a small group of helmet wearers that would have JUST gotten a
serious injury and the helmet reduced it to just a minor injury. That sounds
VERY good and we looked very closely at the statistics. No kidding - we were
actually hoping to see something. But it just isn't there. IF helmets are
making a difference in any head injuries the statistical relevance is
approaching zero.

> 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.

I've perhaps a silly question - why do you tell us that you needed a helmet
instead of needing to learn to ride better? Is it that you prefer crashing
and perhaps overpowering the little protection a helmet can offer and
killing yourself because you are convinced that a helmet will save your life
regardless?

As for experiences - I crashed at high speed on motorcycles riding out in
the desert perhaps over a hundred times. This was pretty much before safety
helmets so most of these crashes were without a helmet and I struck my head
a lot more than once. But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I
knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad
that I couldn't control my fall.

Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you
pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a
manner that you don't risk your life?
 
MykalCrooks wrote:
>
>
> Umm...not meaning to rain on anybody's parade here, but the frequency at
> which I bang my head on the ground while cycling--at least when considering
> the potential finality of consequences--does qualify as a habit.

Lest anyone misinterpret my attitude: I don't think that helmets are
useless for absolutely everyone.

I knew one young woman who was definitely accident prone. For example,
I saw her fall off her bike while standing stock-still at a stop sign.
I saw her fall while walking across a parking lot without her bike. I
saw her fall while trying to load her bike into the trunk of her car.
And I saw her quit riding for a long while because she'd broken her arm
by falling when skiing.

Some people will be on the tail end of the "normal curve." For people
who fall frequently enough to call it a "habit," pehaps a helmet may be
of value. But those folks should probably give consideration to
learning how to preven falls! Then, consider something more robust,
like an absolutely bottom of the line bike helmet, or (better) a
motorcycle helmet.

More ordinary people average hundreds of years of cycling,
statistically speaking, between serious head injuries. Perhaps those
people should just ride for, say, 100 years, _then_ purchase a helmet?
;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:uW%[email protected]...

>...But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I
> knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad
> that I couldn't control my fall.
>
> Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you
> pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a
> manner that you don't risk your life?
>

Because not everyone rides as slowly as you?

mC
 
MykalCrooks wrote:

> Thus, over the decades, I've a
> demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it.

> And so I wear a helmet.

Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of
kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a
helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly?

And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping
and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those
either. Nor does anyone else I see.

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/
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this?

And why does everyone assume there must have been regular and
widespread head injury related caranage amongst cyclists before
helmets were widely available?

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 wrote:
> MykalCrooks wrote:
>
>> Thus, over the decades, I've a
>> demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it.
>
>> And so I wear a helmet.
>
> Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of
> kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a
> helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly?

Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?

> And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping
> and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those
> either. Nor does anyone else I see.

Much slower speeds; much lower forces. (Not to mention much softer surface,
at least for XC skiing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back