[H*lmet] Avoiding the inevitable

[Nick Kew]

In article <[email protected]>,
Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> writes:

> I think some people do get used to it, just like women (usually) get
> used to high heels and uncomfortable lingerie.

.... making themselves a great deal less attractive in the process.

> Some people who post here did 'get used' to wearing a helmet. When they
> stopped, they seem to have noticed less headache or neck pain, for
> example, so 'comfort' is a relative, subjective condition.

The same is true of other things that constrain or put pressure on part
of the body. On the rare occasions I wear a collar stiff enough to take
a tie, I feel stressed with it on and relieved to remove it. Some years
ago I found relief taking my watch off whilst sitting at work, so I took
the next logical step and stopped wearing a wrist watch. And I won't
wear a round-necked T-shirt either.

Fortunately, I can choose to wear comfortable clothes.

>> Speak for yourself Martin. Martin says you do get used to it - I'm sure
>> that many will agree that that's bollocks.

I very occasionally wear a helmet, when in a hard hat area. Though I
never wear one long enough to feel stressed from it, my hair is always
icky and needs washing after it. No thank you.

OTOH, in my motorcycling days, I had no problem wearing one. The
crucial difference being that on the motorbike I wasn't expending
physical energy myself.


--
Nick Kew

 

[davek]

Ian Smith wrote:
> It seems perfectly clear that you are implying I was discussing
> breaking the law

Oh **** off you boring ****.

d.

 

[RogerDodger]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:33:52 +0000, davek <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
>the law.
>

I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?

Yeah but where the law is an ass then breaking it is a democratic (?)expression of dissent.

Thoreau? maybe - perhaps Gandi, or Martin Luther King or...?

 

[RogerDodger]

>>
>>By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
>>the law.
>>
>
>I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
>there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
>bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?[/color]

Smith, Paul.

No No No - the speeding law is a GOOD law. Triple the fines!! Halve the speed limits - make them howl (and maybe, just maybe it might result in compliance - slow them down with any luck?). Maybe we should invoke the argument that some other hard nosed dictator used previously in this thread -like getting used to wearing helmets - these recidivist speedsters "will get used to [obeying the speed limit] it". Disobeying the speed limit laws isn't dissent so much as a species of self deception (that speeding is inconsequential).

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> "Martin Bulmer" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
>>Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
>>new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
>>wear one, I think, and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
>>put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.
>
>
> But motorcyclists don't have a sweating problem. In fact quite the
> reverse. They also often travel at speeds where some pretty serious
> face and eye protection against wind, grit, bugs, etc., is
> essential. And when they test motorcycle jackets they don't test them
> for sweatiness, breathability, etc.. They put heavy weights in them
> and drag them down the road on a rope to test road abrasion
> resistance.

Actually, re the sweating problem, although I'm someone that feels the
heat more than most (too much extra padding) I don't find that it makes
it any worse by having a helmet on. Mine's not great with the number of
vents and size of them, but I find I sweat more when I've stopped and
removed helmet than when I'm actually riding or have stopped briefly and
still have it on.

Velvet

Well Velvet, that's nothing, see I actually wear a full diving suit when I'm riding and, even more than you, I feel the heat more than most (tho I can't work out why). Like you wearing your helmet, I find that despite riding in this diving suit I find it to be perfectly comfortable - and like you I don't find sweating a problem except a little bit when I stop. I don't know what the fuss is about - Mandatory diving suits I say - and for those who complain - you do get used to wearing them!

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:05:03 GMT,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But you are a lady, and consequently only glow. Personally I sweat
> buckets in a helmet - most unpleasant and uncomfortable. I'm not aware
> of my scalp sweating if I don't wear one - I expect it does, but it
> isn't uncomfortable.
>

I think it's evaporation that stops you feeling like you are sweating
and when you stop the loss of that 20mph wind means that the sweat no
longer evaporates quickly enough.

And once you put on a helmet the sweat doesn't evaporate quickly enough
and, after 3-4 miles, you start getting salty water dripping in your
eyes.

But there is enough evaporation that the salt is concentrated enough
that it stings.

The times when the sweat doesn't evaporate quickly enough (going up long
steep hills on cool days) it's easy to wipe enough of it away with a
hand to stop it dripping in your eyes. Once you put a helmet on you can
only wipe it off once it starts trickling down your face.

Tim.

And even worse is the situation where you need to wear spectacles - trying to wipe the sweat off your forehead while wearing a helmet and specs ain't quite so effective. Once the sweat gets under the eyebrows you're stuffed.
Actually you are markedly worse off, safety wise, in these circumstances. I rate being able to see without sweat in my eyes as being much more of a safety concern that that other misguided bonnet delusion.

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:06:53 -0000, "Martin Bulmer"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I don't think it will
>put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does

In which case you think wrong. Check out Australia and New Zealand,
for starters.

Guy

Trying to suggest that a MHL won't put people of cycling (or maybe only people who aren't dedicated cyclists - but that's OK) is just denial. Faced with an argument that you can't rebutt - just deny it (isn't that the politicians standard response?)

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

> wearing a helmet. "You do get used to it" No you don't..

I think some people do get used to it, just like women (usually) get
used to high heels and uncomfortable lingerie. Funny though that they
frequently exclaim relief when said things are removed!

Some people who post here did 'get used' to wearing a helmet. When they
stopped, they seem to have noticed less headache or neck pain, for
example, so 'comfort' is a relative, subjective condition.

Helen - I get a feeling of deja vu reading what you said - was that an echo from cyberspace?

Roger

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004, davek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:

> > It seems perfectly clear that you are implying I was discussing
> > breaking the law
>
> Oh **** off you boring ****.

Well, that clears up teh degree of sound reasoning underpinning your
posting, I suppose. I assume the above does not constitute 'mindless
drivel' in your opinion.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
RogerDodger ('[email protected]')
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? Wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:06:53 -0000, "Martin Bulmer"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >I don't think it will
>> >put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does
>>
>> In which case you think wrong. Check out Australia and New Zealand,
>> for starters.
>>
> Trying to suggest that a MHL won't put people of cycling (or maybe
> only people who aren't dedicated cyclists

This 'dedicated cyclists' thing is nonsense anyway. There are no
'dedicated cyclists'. None of us cycles for the sake of cycling; we
cycle for pleasure, or exercise, or transport, or some combination of
the three. Make cycling sufficiently unpleasant and we'll all
eventually give up. We'll all choose alternative means of transport,
and some of us will end up taking far less exercise in consequence.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

RogerDodger <[email protected]>typed

> > Some people who post here did 'get used' to wearing a helmet. When
> > they
> > stopped, they seem to have noticed less headache or neck pain, for
> > example, so 'comfort' is a relative, subjective condition.
> >
> >

> Helen - I get a feeling of deja vu reading what you said - was that an
> echo from cyberspace?

I am an old woman (FSVO old). Old women repeat themselves ;-)
To be fair, some people round here have not heard me rattle before...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

James Annan <[email protected]> writes:

>Chris Malcolm wrote:


>> Safety legislation looks like it is becoming deranged by a kind of
>> social insanity to me. Does anybody know what the prognosis is? I fear
>> that unless it is checked it will get worse. We'll end up having to be
>> accompanied by a licensed pedestrian leader to walk Out of Doors.
>> These laws will be passed by obese bureaucrats whose office chairs
>> will be fitted with electric stand-up assistance.

>It's only the oddballs and eccentrics who have anything to worry about.

Eccentrically enough, research shows that eccentrics live
longer. In other words, conformity is a health hazard.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"elyob" <[email protected]> writes:

>"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "elyob" <[email protected]> writes:

>>>"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

>>>Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
>>>appreciated.

>> I don't see how you can prepare your lawyer for the court case when
>> the legislation hasn't even been enacted. I suspect if you tried he
>> might advise you that you were being a bit premature

>What are you on about Chris? I'm just wondering what the latest is on the
>position of BHIT etc ...

Preparing your lawyer to defend you when you're prosecuted for lidless
cycling. Not of course to keep you out of jail (or whatever), but to
get the most useful publicity. How many more jails will they have to
build to cope with this?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Carol Hague]

Steph Peters <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark Thompson <[email protected]> of wrote:
> >The difference in sweat (and heat) produced at 15 compared to 20mph is huge
> >for me. I suspect that a lot of those that don't find helmets particularly
> >uncomfortable are trundlies rather than roadies or (like me) always late
> >and trying to make up time.
>
> Eek! I find them sweaty and uncomfortable at my trundly 10-12mph.

Likewise. I am a small round person, and tend to perspire quite a lot. I
am definitely a trundly (good worm that) but I eschewed h*lmets for
comfort reasons long before I became aware of the arguments concerning
their usefulness.

--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

 

[James Annan]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

>
>>It's only the oddballs and eccentrics who have anything to worry about.
>
>
> Eccentrically enough, research shows that eccentrics live
> longer. In other words, conformity is a health hazard.

For the moment, perhaps. But not once they've started rounding up and
shooting the non-conformists...

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[Dave Kahn]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 8 Nov 2004 02:34:18 -0800, Dave Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Actually I think it would be libel as it was in writing. Slander is a
> > spoken defamation.
>
> I think libel is a published defamation. I don't think it's been
> definitively established whether a newsgroup posting is slander or
> libel. Personally, I'd think it mopre akin to mouthing off in a
> crowded pub (ie, spoken in such a way that a large group hears it),
> than to writing an article in a newspaper (for example) where there is
> an author and a publisher and a distributer and a delay between teh
> creation of teh defamation and the broadcasting of it, hence my
> deliberate choice of teh word slander.

In the legal sense publication means putting the defamation into some
enduring medium such as writing and showing or communicating it to
some person other than the person defamed. It does not need to be
published and distributed in the everyday sense that a book or
newspaper is. Remember that Oscar Wilde famously and unsuccessfully
sued for libel on the strength of a barely decipherable calling card.

When someone utters a defamation in the heat of the moment, as in your
crowded pub example, there is no permanent record and therefore it is
slander rather than libel. I don't think there's much doubt that a
Usenet posting is at least as enduring as the Marquis of Queensberry's
scrawl could have been expected to be.

> Besides which, a statement can be slanderous without it being taken to
> court. The fact that it is not prosecuted does not make it any less
> slanderous, or more benign.

I think the chances of its getting to court are slightly more remote
than my chances of getting a date with Michelle Pfeiffer. If it were
actionable though, I'm confident it would be as a libel. As to its
defamatory nature I personally think you're making too much of it.
It's a simple matter for you to clarify your position and correct any
misunderstanding.

IANAL

--
Dave...

 

[elyob]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "elyob" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "elyob" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>>"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.
>
>>>>Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
>>>>appreciated.
>
>>> I don't see how you can prepare your lawyer for the court case when
>>> the legislation hasn't even been enacted. I suspect if you tried he
>>> might advise you that you were being a bit premature
>
>>What are you on about Chris? I'm just wondering what the latest is on the
>>position of BHIT etc ...
>
> Preparing your lawyer to defend you when you're prosecuted for lidless
> cycling. Not of course to keep you out of jail (or whatever), but to
> get the most useful publicity. How many more jails will they have to
> build to cope with this?

Ah, right. Well, I won't be wearing a lid, and I can't afford a lawyer. So
it looks like hard labour for me.

 

[Jon Senior]

elyob [email protected] opined the following...
> Ah, right. Well, I won't be wearing a lid, and I can't afford a lawyer. So
> it looks like hard labour for me.

Make sure you're provided with a helmet. ;-)

Jon

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:08:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This 'dedicated cyclists' thing is nonsense anyway. There are no
>'dedicated cyclists'. None of us cycles for the sake of cycling; we
>cycle for pleasure, or exercise, or transport, or some combination of
>the three. Make cycling sufficiently unpleasant and we'll all
>eventually give up. We'll all choose alternative means of transport,
>and some of us will end up taking far less exercise in consequence.

There is some truth in that, to be sure, but it is also true to say
that the chances of me personally being put off by a lid law are much
less than those of the occasional cyclist.

I know that if you shop around determinedly you can get a helmet for a
tenner or so, but the cheapest ones in my LBS are about £20 - that is
an appreciable proportion of the total most people pay for an entire
bike. For those who have a bike in the shed but no helmet, there are
three choices:

- break the law
- drive to the bike shop and drop £X on a lid, drive home, and ride
the bike
- leave the bike in the shed

The fewer journeys per year the bike does, the greater the net cost
per journey, and the greater the deterrent effect of that cost.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University