Helmet saved my life? Or attracted attack?



I

Ian Smith

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


FWIW, I agree, if you're so clumsy and uncoordinated that you have
numerous incidents of falling off your bike at slow speed, a helmet is
quite possibly a good idea. You probably also want knee, elbow and
wrist-guards, possibly a mouthguard, and make sure that you wear the
same when walking (especially on stairs, ramps, uneven or loose
ground).

Anyone that doesn't have such difficulties remaining upright, however,
may want to make a reasoned assessment of the chances of a helmet
mitigating minor injury against apparently having no discernible
affect versus serious injury, consider the arguments for and against,
and decide whether a helmet is worth the aggravation.

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


A helmet is not a good thing to wear for the majority of cycling I do.
Why is this a poor show?

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

David Damerell

Guest
<[email protected]>:
>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.


Bit of a leap of logic there. If it makes sense for 1 person, why doesn't
it make sense for 60 million?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Gloucesterday, May.
 
A

Andrew Price

Guest
On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>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.


I found that out last year, when my house was struck by lightening.
Fried my ADSL modem, PC motherboard and stereo system, even though
they were all switched off at the time.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:06:43 +0200, Andrew Price <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>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.

>
>I found that out last year, when my house was struck by lightening.
>Fried my ADSL modem, PC motherboard and stereo system, even though
>they were all switched off at the time.


Hmmm. I guess the power surge protectors have their limitations.

Were you able to recover your PC's memory? Or were you one of the 1%
of home users who have a back up?
 
A

Andrew Price

Guest
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:32:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>I found that out last year, when my house was struck by lightening.
>>Fried my ADSL modem, PC motherboard and stereo system, even though
>>they were all switched off at the time.

>
>Hmmm. I guess the power surge protectors have their limitations.


As someone else pointed out, lightening which had crossed thousands of
metres of sky wasn't going to be held up by a few measly millimetres
of switch.

>Were you able to recover your PC's memory? Or were you one of the 1%
>of home users who have a back up?


I did have backups on external hard drives - but to my astonishment,
the two drives inside the PC survived. Maybe the motherboard served
as an upstream "fuse" for them?
 
J

John Kane

Guest
On May 16, 12:20 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?


Start here http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and work outward.
 
J

John Kane

Guest
On May 16, 11:22 am, 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?
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/


I don't know although Coté et al, [1] in a paper lauding helmet
wearing actually shows that more of their helmet wearing riders have
crashes than do the un-helmented. Of course, they didn't know realise
this but you can do the Chi-squared test yourself :) Dorre Robinson
has done if for one of her papers.

Oh course, if you're looking at a societal level the question is
meaningless since the intervention increased fatalities. Presumably
the lawmakers were not trying to wipe out un-helmeted riders but
rather to decrease fatalities.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

1. Coté, T. R.; Sacks, J. J.; Lambert-Huber, D. A.; Dannenberg, A. L.;
Kresnow, M. J.; Lipsitz, C. M. & Schmidt, E. R. Bicycle helmet use
among Maryland children: effect of legislation and education.
Pediatrics, 1992, 89, 1216-1220)
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Tom Crispin said the following on 16/05/2007 20:32:

> Were you able to recover your PC's memory? Or were you one of the 1%
> of home users who have a back up?


Is that figure off the top of your head, or from a survey? It always
amazes me that people don't take backups of all their precious stuff.
You only get to take those once-in-a-lifetime holiday photos once - my
dad found that out the hard way.

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

Peter Clinch

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

> Where can i start...
>
> Convincing reduction, so there must have been some reduction, that
> could have been you...


Why "must" there have been some reduction? If there has, please cite
anyone demonstrating one in a real population. I have yet to see any
such thing. So that's not a very good place to start.

> IF your cycling over 15MPH then you should consider looking at a
> better helmet.


Helmets are built /down/ to a standard (usually EN1078), because
protection is a contrary goal to light weight and good venting.
Expensive helmets don't protect more, but they are less uncomfortable.
You could maybe wear a downhill MTB helmet or amotorcycle crash helmet,
but they're far too hot for most cycling. So that's not a very good
place to start.

> Eating with a helmet on, is that eating whilst cycling or just cant be
> arsed to undo the strap when stopped? Won't start a pros and cons of
> eating whilst riding ;-)


If you're riding a long distance it can be quite normal to snack on the
go. If you're driving do you always pull over to have a snack? So
that's not a very good place to start.

> Of course every safety equipments can in some situations cause a worse
> injury, which is more likely where the helmet helps or worsens?


if it's likely the helmet helps, cite me the population where serious
head injury rates have been improved with increasing helmet use. A
former UK transport minister (David Jamieson) admitted in a written
parliamentary answer that the government knew of nowhere that increasing
helmet use had increased safety. So that's not a very good place to start.

> So your anti helmet,


No, but AFAICT she's anti-misinformation, so that's not a very good
place to start either.

That's quite a few false starts. www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place
for a better start. You don't have to take their word for it either,
it's quite comprehensively referenced with papers from pro and sceptic
camps so it gives you the wherewithal to read up the raw info yourself.

The paper that really got me questioning my beliefs (which had
previously been very similar in outlook to yours, so I do know how you
feel) is http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

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

Chris Malcolm

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

> IF your cycling over 15MPH then you should consider looking at a
> better helmet.


I'd be very interested in that! Having looked into it in some detail,
I find that the problem is that as far as helmets licensed for bicycle
use are concerned, AFAIK there aren't better helmets. There may well
be better helmets for cycling in existence currently disguised as
helmets used for other purposes, such as horse riding, rock climbing,
etc., but if so, I'm not aware of any research validating such helmets
being better for cycling protection than the existing inadequate
helmets.

Do you know of any such better helmets?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
C

Chris Malcolm

Guest
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> No-one's anti-helmet around here. I was wearing one last night. But you
> really do need to understand what they can do and what they can't do. And
> a bit of thin polystyrene foam is not going to save your life. Seriously.
> Just think about the structural properties of polystyrene foam.


One of the things which *really* annoys me about current cycle helmets
is that they're all made of polystyrene foam. The business of
protecting delicate equipment from shocks of all kinds has been very
well researched, and there exist today some much better kinds of
plastic foam than polystyrene foam for the job of making a cycle
helmet.

But nobody making cycle helmets seems to be interested in using them,
or indeed in doing any useful research. The market seems to be stuck
in a nice comfortably profitable niche created for it by marketing
research and over-compliant badly-researched legislation.

I get the impression the current position is "Well, the public are
willing to buy them and they're cheap to make. And if our lobbying
investment pays off we'll soon have legislation making them
compulsory, so why rock the boat by asking questions?"

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
T

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

Guest
On 16 May, 17:26, Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
> tendency 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 ...


Indeed, motor trikes as road vehicles, the riders don't need to wear a
helmet. so a tricycles would prevent topples and falling off as such...
 
T

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

Guest
On 16 May, 19:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 16 May, 11:47, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > 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

>
> FWIW, I agree, if you're so clumsy and uncoordinated that you have
> numerous incidents of falling off your bike at slow speed, a helmet is
> quite possibly a good idea. You probably also want knee, elbow and
> wrist-guards, possibly a mouthguard, and make sure that you wear the
> same when walking (especially on stairs, ramps, uneven or loose
> ground).
>
> Anyone that doesn't have such difficulties remaining upright, however,
> may want to make a reasoned assessment of the chances of a helmet
> mitigating minor injury against apparently having no discernible
> affect versus serious injury, consider the arguments for and against,
> and decide whether a helmet is worth the aggravation.
>
> > I find it a very poor show for people to say a helmet is not a good
> > thing to wear...

>
> A helmet is not a good thing to wear for the majority of cycling I do.
> Why is this a poor show?
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|


Expand on the type of cycling you do please...
 
T

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

Guest
On 16 May, 18:33, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"


Not a nice situation, hope it has stoped. But it was a yob activity
(deliberate) next to impossible to prevent deliberate actions by
someone
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Chris Malcolm said the following on 17/05/2007 09:08:

> Do you know of any such better helmets?


The helmets used by downhillers are supposedly better, and are based on
motorbike helmets. The average utility cyclist is going to look a right
plank tootling along a cycle-path wearing one of those! I have no idea
whether or not D/H helmets really are "better", but people do tend to
walk away from much bigger crashes than the average cyclist will ever have.

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

_

Guest
On 17 May 2007 01:30:25 -0700, The other view point, there is one you
know... wrote:

> On 16 May, 17:26, Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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
>> tendency 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 ...

>
> Indeed, motor trikes as road vehicles, the riders don't need to wear a
> helmet. so a tricycles would prevent topples and falling off as such...


The major danger to cyclists is not falling off, but motorcars.

The best way to reduce the already miniscule risk to which cyclists are
exposed would be to increase the penalties assessed against drivers of
motor vehicles involved in such collisions; permanently revoking their
permission to drive would certainly get their attention.
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> 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.

>
> 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.


Why does how many there are make any difference at all? If it is too
dangerous - as you suggest - to cycle without a helmet, then it must be
too dangerous to walk without a helmet, because walking is 40% more
dangerous than cyclist (that is, you are 40% more likely to be killed, per
kilometre travelled, walking than cycling).

> 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.


Helmets reduce minor injuries to lesser ones, but they appear to aggravate
major injuries. That's the problem.

> I can't accept your statistics without a source, and if they are from
> the government.


Yes, they're from the government. You can look them up yourself; they are
called 'Transport Statistics for Great Britain'.

>..well....I would like to see the A&E stats for
> admissions and reasons. Can you get them?


No, you can't get those, but they would be unreliable even if you could.
They count only those injured, and so don't compare the rates in
the 'exposed to danger' population.

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

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
 
M

Matt B

Guest
_ wrote:
>
> The major danger to cyclists is not falling off, but motorcars.


No. Motorcars do little harm of their own accord. The major danger to
cyclists, pedestrians /and/ motorists is *human* error whilst using the
road.

> The best way to reduce the already miniscule risk to which cyclists are
> exposed would be to increase the penalties assessed against drivers of
> motor vehicles involved in such collisions;


Not at all. Few collisions result from criminal intent, so the increase
of criminal penalties would be fruitless.

> permanently revoking their
> permission to drive would certainly get their attention.


Possibly, if they were actually bothered whether they had one or not.
Remember that a disproportionate number of collisions involve unlicensed
drivers.

The most effective way to reduce risk on the roads, whether it be to
cyclists, pedestrians, or motorists, is to design into the "system"
tolerance which will accommodate the inevitable human error.

--
Matt B
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
_ said the following on 17/05/2007 09:39:

> The best way to reduce the already miniscule risk to which cyclists are
> exposed would be to increase the penalties assessed against drivers of
> motor vehicles involved in such collisions; permanently revoking their
> permission to drive would certainly get their attention.


Nothing to do with cycling, but there was a story on the BBC website
yesterday about a lorry driver who was 2.5 times over the drink drive
limit. He killed a family of four, who were burned alive trapped in
their car. I hope they were at least unconscious. The punishment was a
six year jail sentence and a five year driving ban - it didn't say if
the ban was concurrent with the jail sentence or consecutive. The jail
sentence I suppose is what can be expected - this was a driver
deliberately putting others at risk by drinking - but why should he ever
be allowed to drive again?

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

Ian Smith

Guest
On 17 May 2007 01:33:29 -0700, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 May, 19:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 16 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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

> >
> > FWIW, I agree, if you're so clumsy and uncoordinated that you have
> > numerous incidents of falling off your bike at slow speed, a helmet is
> > quite possibly a good idea. You probably also want knee, elbow and
> > wrist-guards, possibly a mouthguard, and make sure that you wear the
> > same when walking (especially on stairs, ramps, uneven or loose
> > ground).
> >
> > Anyone that doesn't have such difficulties remaining upright, however,
> > may want to make a reasoned assessment of the chances of a helmet
> > mitigating minor injury against apparently having no discernible
> > affect versus serious injury, consider the arguments for and against,
> > and decide whether a helmet is worth the aggravation.
> >
> > > I find it a very poor show for people to say a helmet is not a good
> > > thing to wear...

> >
> > A helmet is not a good thing to wear for the majority of cycling I do.
> > Why is this a poor show?

>
> Expand on the type of cycling you do please...


I commute on road 6 miles (ish) each way daily. I ride recreationally
on quiet roads and off-road paths with my yopung daughter.

In about 15 years I have fallen off at slow speed once, on ice. Once
in five years does not (in my opinion) constitute 'numerous'.

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