Helmet saved my life? Or attracted attack?



M

Marc Brett

Guest
I'm glat he's OK, but I wonder if the assailant would have struck his
head if there was no helmet? In any event, I expect the helmet did some
good here, as it's the type of impact it's designed for.


Student struck by baseball bat while biking
http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/gargoyle/2007/05/dangers_of_the_road.htm

Junior Ethan Stone is fine now, but last week he had a shocking
encounter with violence while on the road. A competitive cyclist who
goes on long training rides, Stone is used to the occasional harassment
from drivers. But little prepared him for what happened Thursday night.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Marc Brett wrote:
> I'm glat he's OK, but I wonder if the assailant would have struck his
> head if there was no helmet? In any event, I expect the helmet did some
> good here, as it's the type of impact it's designed for.


Well, if you find that being attacked by loons with baseball bats is a
particular and common feature of your cycling experience then it might
well make sense to consider a helmet to protect you against them. But
otherwise not.

I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
fullness of time. Is that a good reason to make sure you're fitted with
full lightning conductor systems any time you go out?

I imagine some pedestrians have been attacked with bats over the
fullness of time. Is that a good reason to make sure you've got a
helmet any time you go out 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/
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:47:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
>fullness of time.


Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator, and even in
the wet, with wet tyres, and on open flat moorland, there are far
better targets for lightning. (Though I'm sure we'll hear about it
happening to David Chase in the fullness of time.)
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:

> Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator, and even in
> the wet, with wet tyres, and on open flat moorland, there are far
> better targets for lightning.


On an open flat moor, such as?

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/
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Tom Crispin said the following on 16/05/2007 13:20:

> Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator, and even in
> the wet, with wet tyres, and on open flat moorland, there are far
> better targets for lightning.


On an open flat moor the cyclist will be the highest object around
(otherwise it isn't open and flat). A smidgen of rubber is not going to
help insulate against millions of volts of lightning. If it was that
simple there would be a new nanny-law requiring pedestrians to wear
rubber wellies outdoors, with a conductor rod attached to their helmets
earthing to ground.

Unless David Chase can prove it one way or the other :)

Some of the above may be tongue in cheek :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.
> What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> etc...


You mean the numerous low speed incidents where you don't typically actually
hit your head? You are aware that the incidents which would result in a
cracked skull aren't numerous at all?

clive
 
B

Brendan Halpin

Guest
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:47:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
>>fullness of time.

>
> Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator, and even in
> the wet, with wet tyres, and on open flat moorland, there are far
> better targets for lightning. (Though I'm sure we'll hear about it
> happening to David Chase in the fullness of time.)


Wasn't there someone killed in Cambridgeshire a summer or two ago,
cycling across a disused airfield to retrive his model aeorplane?

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.


Which is why I used them. Do you think being attacked with a baseball
bat while cycling is not an extreme situation too? I think it is, and
thus comparable to other extreme situations.

> What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> etc...


Ask yourself exactly the same about being a pedestrian. And look at the
relative risks of pedestrians and cyclists. Mile for mile cyclists
don't get any more serious injuries than pedestrians, and those serious
accidents they do have are no more productive of head injuries. So why
wear them for one, and not the other? The answer is generally
perception of risk exceeding actual risk.

> I find it a very poor show for people to say a helmet is not a good
> thing to wear...


So you wear one as a pedestrian, and using stairs? Either are similarly
risky to cycling. It's not so much it isn't a good thing to wear, it's
similarly *pointless* for wearing as when a pedestrian. 350 people
under 75 are killed in the UK every year in trips and falls, so if
you're really worried about the possibility of cycling head injury you
should be worrying about the problems getting about on foot too. Though
I suspect you find that it's actually easy /enough/ to get about safely
on foot and don't wear a helmet despite those 350 casualties.

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/
 
C

Colin MacDonald

Guest
On 16 May, 13:20, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:47:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
> >fullness of time.

>
> Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator


Not in the context of lightning; if a bolt can cross a few thousand
feet of air then an inch or so of rubber isn't going to stand in its
way.

Colin
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 16 May, 11:47, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
>> fullness of time. Is that a good reason to make sure you're fitted with
>> full lightning conductor systems any time you go out?
>>
>> I imagine some pedestrians have been attacked with bats over the
>> fullness of time. Is that a good reason to make sure you've got a
>> helmet any time you go out on foot?

>
> The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.
> What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> etc...
>
> I find it a very poor show for people to say a helmet is not a good
> thing to wear...


Helmets definitely kill people. Not very many, true; but definitely more
people than the number of people whose lives are saved by helmets. We know
this, because wherever helmet use has increased, the number of fatalities
per billion cyclist kilometers had gone /up/, not down.

I'm not saying you shouldn't wear a helmet. As you say, they do protect
against low speed bumps and scrapes. But don't imagine it's going to save
your life; it's very, very slightly more likely to kill you.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On 16 May 2007 06:42:51 -0700, Colin MacDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 16 May, 13:20, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:47:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I imagine /some/ cyclists have been struck by lightning over the
>> >fullness of time.

>>
>> Unlikely as pneumatic tyres are an excellent insulator

>
>Not in the context of lightning; if a bolt can cross a few thousand
>feet of air then an inch or so of rubber isn't going to stand in its
>way.


I consider myself well and truly proved wrong in all aspects of my
previous post.
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Simon Brooke said the following on 16/05/2007 15:24:

> Helmets definitely kill people. Not very many, true; but definitely more
> people than the number of people whose lives are saved by helmets. We know
> this, because wherever helmet use has increased, the number of fatalities
> per billion cyclist kilometers had gone /up/, not down.


I could be pedantic here, so I will :) Are those additional fatalities
helmet-wearing cyclists?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
T

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 16 May, 14:08, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "The other view point, there is one you know..."<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
> > The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.
> > What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> > off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> > other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> > etc...

>
> You mean the numerous low speed incidents where you don't typically actually
> hit your head? You are aware that the incidents which would result in a
> cracked skull aren't numerous at all?
>
> clive


I'm happy to agree that a helmet is better than no helmet. How you
care for your head is your problem and will have to take the
consequences.

I hope your not in a position to influence people, other than your say
as an individual...
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
<[email protected]>:
>I'm happy to agree that a helmet is better than no helmet. How you
>care for your head is your problem and will have to take the
>consequences.


For example, if I had any sense at all, I might want to avoid approaches
which are known not to be effective, like foam hats.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Gloucesterday, May.
 
T

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 16 May, 14:35, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.

>
> Which is why I used them. Do you think being attacked with a baseball
> bat while cycling is not an extreme situation too? I think it is, and
> thus comparable to other extreme situations.
>
> > What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> > off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> > other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> > etc...

>
> Ask yourself exactly the same about being a pedestrian. And look at the
> relative risks of pedestrians and cyclists. Mile for mile cyclists
> don't get any more serious injuries than pedestrians, and those serious
> accidents they do have are no more productive of head injuries. So why
> wear them for one, and not the other? The answer is generally
> perception of risk exceeding actual risk.
>
> > I find it a very poor show for people to say a helmet is not a good
> > thing to wear...

>
> So you wear one as a pedestrian, and using stairs? Either are similarly
> risky to cycling. It's not so much it isn't a good thing to wear, it's
> similarly *pointless* for wearing as when a pedestrian. 350 people
> under 75 are killed in the UK every year in trips and falls, so if
> you're really worried about the possibility of cycling head injury you
> should be worrying about the problems getting about on foot too. Though
> I suspect you find that it's actually easy /enough/ to get about safely
> on foot and don't wear a helmet despite those 350 casualties.
>
> 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/


I'm not going to argue the toss with you about why pedestrians should
wear helmets, which is very silly since there are 60 million+ of them.
Dog owners tend to put their dogs on a lead near traffic, since they
want to reduce to as close to Zero the changes of it legging into the
road, the same as a sensible cyclist will wear a helmet to give them
that little bit more protection, which just might be enough to reduce
the injury to a lesser one.

I can't accept your statistics without a source, and if they are from
the government...well....I would like to see the A&E stats for
admissions and reasons. Can you get them?
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... twisted the electrons to say:
> What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
> off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
> other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
> etc...


Alternatively, switch to riding something like this :-
http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/standard_trikes/q.htm

... and your chances of falling off at low speed will, I'd suggest,
be *significantly* reduced! Of course, I don't remember having any great
tendancy to fall off the various bikes (recumbent or not) I've ridden
over the years.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 16 May, 14:08, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "The other view point, there is one you
>> know..."<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>> > The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.
>> > What about the numerous low speed incidents where you might be knocked
>> > off/fall off your bike and with the helmet it would prevent anything
>> > other than a headache, rather than a cracked skull from the road/curb
>> > etc...

>>
>> You mean the numerous low speed incidents where you don't typically
>> actually
>> hit your head? You are aware that the incidents which would result in a
>> cracked skull aren't numerous at all?

>
> I'm happy to agree that a helmet is better than no helmet.


Agree with who? Probably not me.

> How you
> care for your head is your problem and will have to take the
> consequences.
>
> I hope your not in a position to influence people, other than your say
> as an individual...


Why is that? Care to point out bits where I'm wrong?

clive
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke said the following on 16/05/2007 15:24:
>
>> Helmets definitely kill people. Not very many, true; but definitely more
>> people than the number of people whose lives are saved by helmets. We
>> know this, because wherever helmet use has increased, the number of
>> fatalities per billion cyclist kilometers had gone /up/, not down.

>
> I could be pedantic here, so I will :) Are those additional fatalities
> helmet-wearing cyclists?


That actually is not in the data. But since most of the places we're
talking about are places where helmets were compulsory, legally, they must
have been, mustn't they? ;-]

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ Disclaimer: This is a work displacement exercise. Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group. Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed. Thank-you for your cooperation. ]
 
M

Mike Clark

Guest
In message <[email protected]>
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > The scene you painted are poor examples, those are extreme situations.

>
> Which is why I used them. Do you think being attacked with a baseball
> bat while cycling is not an extreme situation too? I think it is, and
> thus comparable to other extreme situations.
>


Within Cambridge it is not an unheard of event. There appears to be a
particular brand of youth that likes hanging out of the passenger
windows of vehicles that cruise around the streets at night targeting
cyclists. I can recall at least two periods in the recent past where a
spate of incidents were publicised locally and where injury was caused
to the cyclists.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"