Helmet Survey

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Steve McGinty, Mar 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I don't want to start another thread on the rights and wrongs of helmets, but I thought you'd be
    interested in the survey on helmet useage currently on the Scottish Cyclists Union website

    http://www.scuonline.org/news.asp

    "Do you wear a cycling helmet? 241 votes casts (at time of posting)

    Always - 61% (147) Only when racing - 22% (52) Usually - 9% (22) Sometimes 5% (11) Never 4% (9)"

    Cheers! Stephen
     
    Tags:


  2. W K

    W K Guest

    "Steve McGinty" <[email protected]_DOT_.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I don't want to start another thread on the rights and wrongs of helmets, but I thought you'd be
    > interested in the survey on helmet useage currently on the Scottish Cyclists Union website
    >
    > http://www.scuonline.org/news.asp
    >
    > "Do you wear a cycling helmet? 241 votes casts (at time of posting)
    >
    > Always - 61% (147)

    Never whilst on the computer.
     
  3. >Never whilst on the computer.

    But do you wear a tin foil hat to deflect that nasty electromagnetic radiation ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  4. M Series

    M Series Guest

    FWIW I fall into the sometimes category. I used to wear it for commuting & MTB-ing. I do neither now
    so rarely wear it. Or you could say I am in the Only when racing category or never for that matter.

    Daft question really.

    "Steve McGinty" <[email protected]_DOT_.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I don't want to start another thread on the rights and wrongs of helmets, but I thought you'd be
    > interested in the survey on helmet useage currently on the Scottish Cyclists Union website
    >
    > http://www.scuonline.org/news.asp
    >
    > "Do you wear a cycling helmet? 241 votes casts (at time of posting)
    >
    > Always - 61% (147) Only when racing - 22% (52) Usually - 9% (22) Sometimes 5% (11) Never 4% (9)"
    >
    > Cheers! Stephen
     
  5. M Series

    M Series Guest

    No but I wear my Oakleys to protect my eyes whilst computing. :)

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Never whilst on the computer.
    >
    > But do you wear a tin foil hat to deflect that nasty electromagnetic
    radiation
    > ;-)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
    > Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending
    a
    > reply!
    >
    > Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the
    keyboaRRRDdd
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  6. Niv

    Niv Guest

    A tin foil had wont do anything unless it's grounded, i.i.e. plugged into earth. But you still have
    a route through your neck into the brains soft tissue (Assuming your not a talking head in a jar - a
    la Simpsons!). The perfect solution is to sit in a grounded metal mesh box or similar. However, I
    find that a bit annoying & cumbersome.

    I wonder if Knights of Olde were computer proof; all that armour & chain mail!

    Niv (somewhat esoteric).

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >No but I wear my Oakleys to protect my eyes whilst computing. :)
    >
    > Wrong - they are supposed to offer thermonuclear protection - only to be
    worn
    > if Osmotic Bin Liner does the really nasty - no good for computer screens.
    Tin
    > foil hats are much better ;-)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
    > Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending
    a
    > reply!
    >
    > Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the
    keyboaRRRDdd
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Niv <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The perfect solution is to sit in a grounded metal mesh box or similar. However, I find that a bit
    > annoying & cumbersome.
    >

    If you mount a wheel on each corner and add an engine and a few other bits, it can be quite useful
    for getting around though ;-)

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
    adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
    Bernard Shaw
     
  8. Drifter

    Drifter Guest

    The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.

    I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw and
    had other serious injuries. Just a couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and
    lost my balance and fell against a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

    All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety, is
    liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires you to do
    so, should you have reason to make a claim, insurance companies may ask the courts to deduct from
    your award the expenses, short and long term, for injuries that might have been avoided had one
    been wearing a helmet. In that sense you may lose big time, particularly should you have only
    minimal or partial brain damage. Significant brain damage, it doesn't matter because you are too
    far gone to care!

    wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
    >
    > >Never whilst on the computer.
    >
    > But do you wear a tin foil hat to deflect that nasty electromagnetic radiation ;-)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
    > Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!
    >
    > Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  9. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.

    This is uk.rec.cycling you need to qualify the above sentence since here, the UK naturally, it
    isn't the law. Yes, I know you mention North America below but that is several countries
    encompassing many laws.

    Colin
     
  10. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.
    >
    > I wear one over here in the UK whenever I'm cycling - and it isn't
    required by
    > law. Still doesn't stop humour though :)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
    > Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending
    a
    > reply!
    >
    > Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the
    keyboaRRRDdd
    > ~~~~~~~~~~

    I wear one too, but ain't gettin' into that ole arguement about pros&cons...more interestingly I'm
    convinced that the recently purchased hi-viz vest is what actually 'saved my life' several times on
    my recent John O' Groats to Lands End <yawn> trip.....broke both head & tail lights on day 1, had
    spare headlight but took 6 days to sort tail light out. On most days, due to mileage, I ended up
    cycling after dark for a short while, in some instances on very busy dual carriageways. In each case
    motorists not only gave me 'plenty room', but also never, not once, blew their horns at me to
    highlight the fact I didn't have a rear light. Can only think they were so dazzled by the reflective
    vest / backpack / bike reflectors, they didn't actually notice!! Dave. (scary, I know and I won't be
    doing it again!!)
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>, drifter <[email protected]> wrote:
    >The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.

    Not, it's not. This is uk.rec.cycling.

    >I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw

    Obviously a helmet would have protected him from jaw injuries, yes. Doesn't everyone wear them on
    their chin?

    >couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and lost my balance and fell against a
    >lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

    Whereas no-one has ever survived such an impact unhelmeted, as we know.

    >All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety, is
    >liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires you to do
    >so, should you have reason to make a claim, insurance companies may ask the courts to deduct from
    >your award the expenses,

    _Here_ in the UK the CTC have been successful in putting a stop to such contributory
    negligence claims.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
     
  12. Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I wear one too, but ain't gettin' into that ole arguement about pros&cons...more interestingly I'm
    >convinced that the recently purchased hi-viz vest is what actually 'saved my life' several times on
    >my recent John O' Groats to Lands End <yawn> trip.....broke both head & tail lights on day 1, had
    >spare headlight but took 6 days to sort tail light out.

    I think in many cases reflectives are as effective as lights; unlike lights they obviously only work
    if the motorists' headlights illuminate you, but OTOH they are omnidirectional if well-designed (and
    visibility from the side is an ongoing concern of mine) and can appear very bright in bright car
    headlights. I wear a reflective vest, have reflective patches fore and aft on my panniers, mount 2
    rear reflectors, and have sowed reflective strips onto my winter gloves for more effective
    signalling at night; but I am considering mounting reflective material on the bike to protect
    against approaches from the side. It is unfortunate that most reflectors (including the contentious
    pedal reflectors) operate primarily in the fore-aft direction where one's lights already do a good
    job. I suspect the "signal ring" around the edge of the Bisy headlight also provides some lateral
    protection.

    Not that I would advocate riding without a taillight; LED taillights are dirt cheap and light, so I
    always have at least 2 exactly to guard against this type of failure. (Currently I have a third,
    running off the dynamo.)
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
     
  13. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    drifter wrote:

    > I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw
    > and had other serious injuries. Just a couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly
    > and lost my balance and fell against a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

    This is anecdotal evidence, which isn't statistically useful. I rode into a lamppost more than once
    when I was a kid, well before helmets were regarded as any sort of "normal" for cycling, and I
    didn't sustain any head injuries. That anecdote doesn't prove anything any more than yours: in
    short, anecdotes, whether "for" or "against" aren't really useful data. I know of someone who was
    killed when he slipped and fell and banged his head getting out the bath, but that doesn't make it a
    Really Good Idea to wear helmets in the bath and shower. I was quite possibly saved a fractured
    skull by a cycle helmet once, but due to the unusual nature of the accident (hit by a car spinning
    out from a collision on a road I wasn't even cycling on at the time) I could've had the same result
    had I been a pedestrian. I don't see people wearing them as pedestrians, so if it isn't a cast-iron
    reason to do that, it isn't a cast-iron reason to wear it on the bike either.

    > All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety, is
    > liability.

    "Safety" can be taken in more than one way. I quite often wear a helmet, but I don't think it makes
    me particularly less likely to sustain a serious head injury. I think it's quite possibly going to
    save me a bloody awful headache and a nasty graze but that's not really safety, that's a comfort
    tradeoff. Short trips the helmet comfort isn't an issue, so I wear it to offset a possible headache.
    Longer trips the helmet comfort is more of an issue, so I tend not to wear one as much for long
    days, especially in hot weather.

    Liability is a non-issue in the UK, helmets aren't compulsory here.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  14. Graeme Dods

    Graeme Dods Guest

    drifter <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw
    > and had other serious injuries.
    <snip>

    Is this meant to be a pro-helmet argument? Just wondering because normal helmets are designed to
    protect your skull, not your jaw. Unless your dentist friend was wearing one of those full face
    helmets, but in that case he'd have increased the chances of injuring his neck.

    Graeme
     
  15. On 04 Apr 2003 13:52:44 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, drifter <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.
    >
    >Not, it's not. This is uk.rec.cycling.
    >
    >>I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw
    >
    >Obviously a helmet would have protected him from jaw injuries, yes. Doesn't everyone wear them on
    >their chin?

    I've noticed a couple of people round here wearing what seem to be lightweight (I hope) versions of
    motorcross helmets - full face jobs. And I'm talking about commuting here!

    >
    >>couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and lost my balance and fell against a
    >>lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.
    >
    >Whereas no-one has ever survived such an impact unhelmeted, as we know.

    I've never worn a helmet and have had mishaps over the years - plenty that would get the 'head
    injuries' box ticked on a form (ie minor bruises, grazes, blood etc). Probably would have mashed a
    helmet had I been wearing one.

    I hate helmets.

    >>All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety, is
    >>liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires you to do
    >>so, should you have reason to make a claim, insurance companies may ask the courts to deduct from
    >>your award the expenses,
    >
    >_Here_ in the UK the CTC have been successful in putting a stop to such contributory
    >negligence claims.
     
  16. "drifter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety,
    > is liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires
    > you to do so,

    Where in NA does a law require an adult to do so?
     
  17. "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > > I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw
    > > and had other serious injuries. Just
    a
    > > couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and lost
    my
    > > balance and fell against a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

    > This is anecdotal evidence, which isn't statistically useful. I rode into a lamppost more than
    > once when I was a kid, well before helmets were regarded as any sort of "normal" for cycling, and
    > I didn't
    sustain
    > any head injuries. That anecdote doesn't prove anything any more than yours: in short, anecdotes,
    > whether "for" or "against" aren't really useful data.

    And I know a child -- Corinne Low, pictured and with a link to her essay from
    http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.htm -- who had a bike accident wearing a helmet, but landed
    on her unprotected face and got cut pretty badly. Which makes me wonder why they don't have face
    shields like motorcylce helmets, or are those useless in impact situations too?

    > I know of someone who was killed when he slipped and fell and banged
    his
    > head getting out the bath, but that doesn't make it a Really Good Idea to wear helmets in the bath
    > and shower. I was quite possibly saved a fractured skull by a cycle helmet once, but due to the
    > unusual nature
    of
    > the accident (hit by a car spinning out from a collision on a road I wasn't even cycling on at the
    > time) I could've had the same result had
    I
    > been a pedestrian. I don't see people wearing them as pedestrians, so if it isn't a cast-iron
    > reason to do that, it isn't a cast-iron reason to wear it on the bike either.

    In 1991 went to Calif. to visit my sister, and was amused to see my little niece & nephew put on
    helmets to bicycle ride or roller skate -- neither of which caused them to move faster than I walk,
    and both of which they did on the sidewalk -- and then took them off to climb on monkey bars & other
    structures in a playground! Apparently they were following some arbitrary rules that wheels required
    helmets, and absence of wheels required they not be worn, regardless of the actual danger of the
    situation.

    Producing more serious head injuries than either of those situations are falls on stairs, and next
    to that accidents in cars. Yet somehow wearing helmets in cars other than during races has not
    caught on, nor has wearing them in buildings.

    BTW, I'm in the Bronx, NY, and have never worn them. I didn't wear a scrum cap to play rugby,
    either. Of course that was some years ago, before they had the headgear that's popular now. I played
    a little American tackle football way back too, but never with any of that body armor, although a
    cousin bought me a helmet; I'd've been afraid to play in a formal game with others wearing such.

    In any situation where head injury might come up, I'm actually more afraid of neck injury. There are
    conceivable things that could be worn to prevent neck injury but AFAICT they'd severely limit head
    movement. In cars I go for lap & shoulder belts, although one consultant told me they contribute to
    as many deaths or injuries as they prevent; I can only imagine that in certain crash situations they
    prevent one from ducking an object coming at your head, but I haven't seen enough confirmatory data
    to dissuade me from wearing them. (A few years ago, however, a statistic quoted by NY Auto Club
    supposedly to boost wearing of belts actually showed they had no effect on frequency of fatalities
    among front seat occupants in New York City.)

    Robert
     
  18. On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:52:54 -0500, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

    SNIP

    >And I know a child -- Corinne Low, pictured and with a link to her essay from
    >http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.htm -- who had a bike accident wearing a helmet, but
    >landed on her unprotected face and got cut pretty badly. Which makes me wonder why they don't have
    >face shields like motorcylce helmets, or are those useless in impact situations too?

    Ye Gods. You could also wear full body armour like the downhillers do; just to be on the safe side,
    you know. You can never have too much safety. For the sake of the children etc etc etc.

    Alternatively you could (a) stay at home and die of heart failure or
    (b) commute by car and be lethal danger to those around you.

    SNIP
     
  19. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:27:49 GMT, drifter scrawled: ) I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear
    one and had a single ) accident and fractured his jaw and had other serious injuries. Just a )
    couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and lost my ) balance and fell against a
    lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

    There seems to be lots of *anecdotal* evidence about how helmets *do* help to reduce the severity of
    crashes. Both a friend and I have had crashes where there's no doubt that the presence of a helmet
    resulted in minor injuries to me, and only a grazed cheek to my friend.

    "But the helmet looks more damaged than the crash would really warrant, because that's what they do:
    they soak up the shock and turn into a polyrystene mess." Not so: I only gauge how hard we hit the
    ground by the damage to other objects that struck it the same time. My (very strong, for reasons
    involving wallops to previous frames) glasses frames were smashed to the extent that, at the very
    least, it would've resulted in concussion for me had I not been prevented from hitting the ground by
    my helmet and glasses. The helmet, although a write-off, wasn't so badly damaged as I've heard: just
    a serious dent.

    With that in mind, I'd be interested in (reasonable, un-Damerell i.e. open to discussion) theories
    as to why this anecdotal evidence somehow doesn't affect the statistics. I wonder why helmets don't
    seem to change the overall severity of accidents, even when in individual accidents that I hear
    about, there's often no doubt that a helmet has done some real good.

    Personally I swear by helmets: from very personal experience. But I want to understand why the stats
    seem to prove me wrong for "the average cyclist." Who is having the near-death experiences that make
    up for my narrow squeaks? And isn't he or she getting sick of it? Do helmets encourage more reckless
    behaviour in some cyclists, or even in some motorists?

    J-P
     
  20. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:21:09 +0100, Peter Clinch scrawled: ) Liability is a non-issue in the UK,
    helmets aren't compulsory here.

    Neither are parts of the Highway Code; yet they still translate into liability. Is it really
    different for helmets, given the HC recommends wearing them?

    J-P
    --
    Emmanuel Goldstein: During the recent troubles, 2600 got lots of email urging them to attack China,
    all of it from Hotmail accounts. Hotmail records the sender's address in an X-Originating-IP field,
    so 2600 checked these up. They were *all* from .mil domains.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...