Helmet Debate

[Buck]

On 07/02/2005 13:33:09 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:25:17 GMT, Buck <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>> But BeHIT don't care about that. As long as every cyclist wears a
>>> helmet they don't care if injury rates stay the same, or if a fair
>>> proportion of cyclists simply give up riding.

>> Are they still excluding us trikers?

> No, tricycles are included, even toy tricycles ridden in playgrounds.
> Unicycles are OK, though. Perfectly safe, no risk of head injury at all.

> Guy

That's no good, up to now I have enjoyed my smug ability to flout popular
convention.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:40:26 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's no good, up to now I have enjoyed my smug ability to flout popular
>convention.

Heh!

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 CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Pete Bentley]

davek <[email protected]> wrote:
>And yes, you do see increasing numbers of Pro riders insisting on
>wearing a helmet even on those rare occasions when they aren't required
>to by rules, but I doubt any of them have really thought the matter
>through or taken the trouble to find out just how little protection a
>cycle helmet really gives them.

Just another data point there: Jan Ullrich apparently wasn't wearing
a helmet when he rear-ended his team car and went through the rear
windscreen whilst training yesterday. Seems his only injuries
were minor cuts to the face and throat.

Unfortunately the reason I know this is because I read it in
a newspaper report... I forget the exact wording but the gist was
how awfully lucky he was to escape so lightly because he wasn't
wearing a helmet. *sigh*

Pete.

 

[Tony Raven]

Pete Bentley wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the reason I know this is because I read it in
> a newspaper report... I forget the exact wording but the gist was
> how awfully lucky he was to escape so lightly because he wasn't
> wearing a helmet. *sigh*
>

He was very lucky to get away with not having his helmet manufacturer
sponsorship withdrawn. The least he could have done for all the money
they pay him is to get a bad head injury.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Nick Kew]

Pete Bentley wrote:

> Unfortunately the reason I know this is because I read it in
> a newspaper report... I forget the exact wording but the gist was
> how awfully lucky he was to escape so lightly because he wasn't
> wearing a helmet. *sigh*

So your letter to the paper in question should point out how fortunate
it was that his head wasn't encumbered with a construction that could
have broken his neck?

--
Nick Kew

 

[Pete Bentley]

Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
>So your letter to the paper in question should point out how fortunate
>it was that his head wasn't encumbered with a construction that could
>have broken his neck?

If it was a newspaper that I normally read or bought, then certainly.
This, however, was a copy of The Times that I was reading in a
coffee shop whilst waiting for a friend, so probably not.

Also, to be honest, without knowing a lot more about the accident
it's pretty hard to speculate that a helmet would have made a neck
break any more likely. It most likely would not have saved him
from cuts to the face and throat though.

Pete.

 

[Nick Kew]

Pete Bentley wrote:

>>So your letter to the paper in question should point out how fortunate
>>it was that his head wasn't encumbered with a construction that could
>>have broken his neck?
>
>
> If it was a newspaper that I normally read or bought, then certainly.
> This, however, was a copy of The Times that I was reading in a
> coffee shop whilst waiting for a friend, so probably not.
>
> Also, to be honest, without knowing a lot more about the accident
> it's pretty hard to speculate that a helmet would have made a neck
> break any more likely. It most likely would not have saved him
> from cuts to the face and throat though.

Of course, it's silly to speculate. But it could perhaps be worded
to highlight the comparable silliness of what you reported the
article as saying.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Dave Larrington]

Not Responding wrote:

> I, on the other hand, am anti-helmet. Not that I force my decision on
> others (my children even own helmets that they occasionally choose to
> wear).
>
> I am anti-helmet because (a) they are of no value in preventing
> injury, (b) they put people off cycling and (c) all voluntary use of
> helmets is
> a vote for compulsion.

They /are/ quite handy for mounting extra lights...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

 

[davek]

Patrick Herring wrote:
> 'Twas <[email protected]> (http://tinyurl.com/dad2e) in this
> ng.

Thanks for the link.

That story would almost be funny if it weren't so pointlessly, stupidly
tragic.

d.

 

[RogerDodger]

Why are you so angry?!

I did put some thought into the matter...

Statistics can very often be made to back up either side of an argument,
just bear that in mind.
--
David Bentley

Angry???

I'd say that Davek is showing little to no tolerance for people like you who try to present themselves as thoughtful and clever when all-the while they're clueless clots. Bentley, that's you - your self-congratulary conceit is nauseating and an insult to our intelligence.

If you post stuff that's an insult to our intelligence - well - that's what you deserve, to get tarred and feathered.

Roger

 

[[email protected]]

RogerDodger wrote:
>
> I'd say that Davek is showing little to no tolerance for people like
> you who try to present themselves as thoughtful and clever when all-the
> while they're clueless clots. Bentley, that's you - your
> self-congratulary conceit is nauseating and an insult to our
> intelligence.
>
> If you post stuff that's an insult to our intelligence - well - that's
> what you deserve, to get tarred and feathered.
>



Sigh!

Someone else who obviously hasn't bothered to read the rest of the
thread and who also likes to hurl insults (a quick google search shows
that you are quite adept at this).


"Self congratulatory conceit"---what the hell are you talking about!

 

[Mark Thompson]

> This suggests to me that there are people (I don't know if BHIT see it
> this way) who regard the 14mph+ situation as essentially beyond
> solution, so they turn to what can be done about other situations. If
> they're right about that then I can see why they think the best that
> can be done is eliminating all those cuts and bruises,

No no no. What they see about the Xmph situation is with a helmet it's X-
12mph. So they think a crash with helmet at 20mph becomes a crash at 8mph.

Could somone post some physics?

 

[Mark Thompson]

> There are fewer because a consensus has been reached that helmets are
> an abomination.

We don't go that far!

Group consensus seems to be that they are great at preventing minor
injuries to the top of th head, but that their impact on serious injuries
is hovering somewhere around the nil mark.

IMO this puts 'em up there with track mitts. Great at what they do but not
essential wearing.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Mark Thompson wrote:

> No no no. What they see about the Xmph situation is with a helmet it's X-
> 12mph. So they think a crash with helmet at 20mph becomes a crash at 8mph.
>
> Could somone post some physics?

The Problem Bit in an accident is the Kinetic Energy, which is
proportional to the *square* of the velocity.

More complex than simple KE calculations is the differing behaviour of
materials as they are struck by differing energies. Glass, for example,
is very strong stuff, but if it takes a critical level of energy it
undergoes brittle failure and for all its strength at lower energies it
might as well not be there if it smashes. Helmets appear to undergo
brittle failure above a certain point.

But beyond that there's some basic common-sense and physiology: If you
are wearing a helmet rated to help against a 12 mph accident you really
will feel more than 0 joules of energy strike your body if you hit the
floor at exactly 12 mph.
This latter point is obvious even to even a blithering idiot, but if you
have Seen The Light then the merely bloody obvious is cast into a deep
shadow.

Despite all this the point remains that arguing how effective a helmet
might or should be is rather moot when you can look at what effect they
*have* had where they have been made compulsory. No improvement in
serious head injuries, reduction in cycling levels. No need to
speculate about this, we've seen it happen several times.

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/

 

[audrey]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:09:45 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:


>IMO this puts 'em up there with track mitts. Great at what they do but not
>essential wearing.

but track mitts Saved My Life! or at least saved my palms from some
nasty grazing, so now I make my son and my partner wear them, too.

 

[davek]

RogerDodger wrote:
> I'd say that Davek is showing little to no tolerance for people like
> you who try to present themselves as thoughtful and clever when all-the
> while they're clueless clots.

Thanks, but I can speak for myself - as you would have realised if you
had bothered to read the rest of the thread before jumping in
two-footed with your reply.

(Always advisable - especially when replying to posts more than a few
days old.)

d.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I am anti-helmet because (a) they are of no value in preventing
> injury

ITYM Serious Injury. They are great at what they're designed for!

In an AOL 'me too' stylee, I don't wear one when cycling to the shops for
the same reasons that I don't wear one when I'm walking to the shops.

 

[Peter Clinch]

audrey wrote:

> but track mitts Saved My Life! or at least saved my palms from some
> nasty grazing, so now I make my son and my partner wear them, too.

I used to make a point of *always* wearing some sort of gloves on the
bike. Tend not to now, my palms seem to be taking it okay to date
(touchwood).

For general utility cycling there is no need to be wearing *anything*
that you wouldn't wear to go for a general utility walk. If it's cold,
gloves, if it isn't, probably not. More specialist activities may
involve different stuff.

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/

 

[davek]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> IMO this puts 'em up there with track mitts. Great at what they do but not
> essential wearing.

Track mitts - or any other kind of suitable gloves - are up there with
shoes in my book. Yes, you /can/ cycle without them, but I very rarely
do, if I can help it.

d.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> For general utility cycling there is no need to be wearing *anything*
> that you wouldn't wear to go for a general utility walk. If it's
> cold, gloves, if it isn't, probably not. More specialist activities
> may involve different stuff.

Unless your utility cycling involves:

o a warm day, and
o twist-grip gear shifters



--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day, but when
I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.