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



Peter Clinch wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:

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

{DO WHAT?!?}

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

And why do you (and many other AHZs) over-snip your posts so no one knows to
what the heck you're replying?
 
Sorni wrote:

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

No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it
will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little
energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my doubts...

>> 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.)

XC ski does involve downhill, and negotiating them one can easily
reach speeds that are relevant to cycles. And the trees and rocks
along the trails are just as hard as the trees and rocks alongside
MTB trails and roads.

But again the case that typical cycle helmets are only built to
specifications where lower speeds are what you can expect them to
work at, and you still haven't taken that on board.

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/
 
Sorni wrote:

> And why do you (and many other AHZs)

If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a
cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot"
territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind
is made up.

> over-snip your posts so no one knows to
> what the heck you're replying?

I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my
feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out
stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't
doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless.
But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot",
which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works.

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:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?
>
> No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it
> will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little
> energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my
> doubts...

But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> And why do you (and many other AHZs)
>
> If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a
> cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot"
> territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind
> is made up.

You've since mentioned -- many times -- your change of heart--- er, mind re.
lids.

>> over-snip your posts so no one knows to
>> what the heck you're replying?
>
> I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my
> feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out
> stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't
> doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless.
> But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot",
> which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works.

I didn't say it had anything to do with helmets; just a trend I've noticed.

I believe in and practice trimming as much as anyone. I just try to do it
so as to leave the context in tact for the first-time reader of a post.

One will note, of course, that you DELETED the reference to WHAT YOU DELETED
in the first place! Good form, that :-D
 
"MykalCrooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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?

Well, you're really the man. How many races have you finished first in? Or
are you one of those local club guys who rides really fast so that he can
beat in the girls to show what a man he is?
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy into
the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your head. Turning
around fast and hitting your head can exceed this speed. In fact, one of the
larger sources of fatal head injuries are accidents in the home.

I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head injuries and
bicycling isn't among them?
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>
> A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy
> into the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your
> head. Turning around fast and hitting your head can exceed this
> speed. In fact, one of the larger sources of fatal head injuries are
> accidents in the home.
> I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere
> but on a bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head
> injuries and bicycling isn't among them?

Sigh. If I fall while descending a steep mountain road, I'd like a helmet
between my SKIDDING skull and the pavement. If I slam into a wall head
first at 40+ mph, well, I'd still like to at least have one on but I know it
won't save my life or brain function.

(And yes, if I get shot in the chest, I might as well have SOMETHING in the
way of the bullet, even if it doesn't save me. At least my corpse won't be
found naked.)
 
Sorni wrote:

> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.

Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or
so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up
means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since,
say, 1985?

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/
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
>bicycle

One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading.

Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a
curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of
acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so
the object doesn't cave in your skull.
--
PeteCresswell
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading.
>
> Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a
> curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of
> acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so
> the object doesn't cave in your skull.

The same kerbs are available to pedestrians to hit their heads on,
as are the edges of steps. In the UK around 350 people under the
gae of 75 are killed each year in trips and falls, so it's
certainly possible to kill yourself on them, and without a bike
too. So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

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:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.
>
> Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or
> so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up
> means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since,
> say, 1985?

Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies and
stats.

Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
FILED.

Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see
they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Never mind, of course,
that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
without the lid.

I'll take the protection, thanks. You certainly don't have to.
 
Sorni wrote:

> Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
> pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
> FILED.

So if this would have been worth attending ER for without a hat
then it would have been in the records, and the absence of such
incidents would register as a fall in injury rates, if there
absence was significant. It appears it isn't.

> Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see
> they don't work; or even that it caused the injury.

Again, it will go into the population stats where the sum total of
all the incidents will give you a better indication of what you
might expect.

> Never mind, of course,
> that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
> without the lid.

But you don't actually know that. For example, if it were an
accident where the extra size and weight of the lid meant the
difference between hitting the head and not hitting at all, then it
wouldn't have been at least as bad. I don't know that would have
been the case, but you don't know it wouldn't.

> I'll take the protection, thanks.

As is your choice. I choose to take it at certain times, like
technical MTBing. What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
/must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

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:
> Sorni wrote:

>> I'll take the protection, thanks.

> As is your choice.

TYVM. Let the threads cease!

> ... What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
> wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
> about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
> /must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
> things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
> landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

I'll worry about my own expectations, TYVM. (And they're not as you
describe, anyway.)

Darn, we almost had it there...
 
Per Peter Clinch:
>So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb and all
his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
riding around.
--
PeteCresswell
 
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> writes:

> Per Peter Clinch:
>>So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?
>
> You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.
>
> Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
> head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
> windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb
> and all

Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
"situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
not have believed it.


> his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
> riding around.

Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
least some protection.

> --
> PeteCresswell

--
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Peter Clinch:
> >So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?
>
> You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

If we could agree to keep mountain biking separate from ordinary riding
on roads, perhaps we could save lots of misunderstanding.

If you're going mountain biking in tricky terrain, it's not illogical
to want to wear a helmet. Falling is part of the game.

Ordinary road riding is much, much different.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Hadron Quark wrote:

> Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
> dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
> "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
> not have believed it.

Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting me.
What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
typical cyclists on roads.

**** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other
than on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head
protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
going on.

> Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
> least some protection.

Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB
work. But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built
to, don't take my word for it), and have a very low chance of
saving anyone a serious injury. If it were otherwise increased
wearing would have dented the serious injury figures 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/
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
> head-first.

Mine are typically far more controlled than when I'm walking, and
sideways rather than over the bars. Last time I went over the
bars... I hit my head! Was I wearing a hlemt? Yes? Was I glad
about that? No, because I landed on my chin and it made no
difference at all :-(

> Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
> riding around.

As I usually do wear mine for technical MTB work. Most helmet
sceptic data comes specifically from road based incidents, so
anybody trying to draw hard conclusions about MTB through a rock
garden is kidding themselves. Please note I'm not trying to do any
such thing.

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]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
>> dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
>> "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
>> not have believed it.
>
> Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting
> me. What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
> suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
> typical cyclists on roads.

No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing mirror,
drainage slots and other such things. You replied that it would be the riders
own fault for not being aware enough to avoid them : a pathetic attempt
to suggest that any form of protection for a cyclist is unnecessary
since its "safer than walking down the street" and less prone to head
injuries than doing the shopping....

>
> **** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other than
> on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head

Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are
not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether
bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case
of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie).

> protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
> going on.
>
>> Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
>> least some protection.
>
> Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB work.
> But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built to, don't
> take my word for it), and have a very low chance of saving anyone a
> serious injury. If it were otherwise increased wearing would have
> dented the serious injury figures for cyclists.

Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough
material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who
reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe
even their lives. See "point of contact" post earlier in the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back