Helmets

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:49:42 +0100, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Bikes don't attack their riders.

Mine does. Only during maintenance, mind. Got a nasty bite
off'n the chainset this very monring.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

[Not Responding] [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Cycling is recreational only in as much as driving to work
or to the shops is recreational. Of course, for some
people cycling or driving is a leisure activity but for
most it is all just transport.

Possibly. I know of few people that cycle-commute who don't
also enjoy the activity.

Jon

Just zis Guy said:

I've been knocked off by a car, sent flying through the
air, and there is no possible doubt that my Milletts
knitted acrylic balaclava saved my life.

I'm sorry Guy that is demonstrably false. Millets have never
done knitted acrylic balaclavas. From 1950 to 1985 their
balaclavas were knitted coarsest sheeps wool and then from
1985 on they moved to knitted polyester or polyester wool
mix but never knitted acrylic*

Tony

* See "A complete history of the Milletts balaclava" by
Major Richard Sole for the full details

Gonzalez [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Distances to feet, or thereabouts, not to head. If you
could sit on a=20 horse with your head at 1.5m, it'd be a
Shetland pony and you could=20 probably put both feet on
the floor and stand up!

=20
Children on Shetland Ponies are encouraged to wear
helmets.

Children on all horses / ponies are encouraged to wear
helmets as it=20 inspires a long-term good practice for if /
when they ride larger=20 mounts.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Happens less. Especially on roads, during commuting, or
even on off-road=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tracks. In fact in around 15 years of riding regularly on
a variety of=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bikes, I've never once been thrown by mechanical failure,
only by rider=

=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

failure which is usually more predictable.

=20
Fair enough. But mile for mile of non-competitive
riding/cycling I would *guess* that cyclists come off
their bikes more often than riders come off their mounts.

Personal experience and that of my friends would suggest
otherwise.=20 Those people I know who ride are probably
thrown, or fall about 3 / 4=20 times a year at a
conservative estimate. These are experienced riders.=20
Newbies can probably expect a slightly higher rate.

By comparison, I have fallen off my bike(s) about 10 times
in my life,=20 and most of those when I was younger (And
considerably more stupid... a=20 plastic bag hung off drop
handlebars is a daft way to carry =A34 in 1p=20 coins!). The
last time I fell from my bike was about 2 years ago and=20
involved a collision with a pedestrian (We were both fine,
if a little=20 shaken!).
=20

Quoted message said:

I've once been knocked by a car, it was a low speed impact
by a car turning right across a bus/cycle lane. I didn't
come off my bike, although the rear wheel was damaged
beyond economic repair. However,

I've been brushed by buses on a two occasions, and avoided a
number of=20 close calls, some of which I could have avoided
by riding more=20 assertively. My level or assertiveness (or
agression ;-)) has increased=20 dramatically over the last
18 months and the number of close calls has=20 decreased
over the same period. I'd like to think that the drivers
were=20 getting better, but I suspect that there is a causal
relationship here.

Jon

Gonzalez [email hidden] opined the
following... <apologies for the second post. My program was
set to limit quotes!>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given that a cycling helmet is designed to protect
against impact with flat objects like paving slabs, 12kgs
of bike with all the sharp bits it entails will probably
cut clean through it. If you want protection against
penetration rather than impact, you need a sheet (or two)
of ceramic as part of the lining.

The polystyrene inner will slow and probably stop an
otherwise slicing pedal.

Are you sure? How about a chainring? Or a spoke (less likely
admittedly)? Or even the end of the handlebars. Foam offers
very little resistance to sharp objects. Especially ones
with narrow tapers. Try cutting through foam with a metal
bar. Now try it with a chainring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really? Not any of the ones I've seen. In fact. Every
horse rider I've seen was wearing a traditionally styled
ventless helmet which, when I last saw one, consisted of
a continuous curve of relatively thick, rigid plastic,
not a lightweight shell that relied heavily on the foam
padding to offer protection.

holtzsaddleco.comeacces1.htmlOpen ↗

They have air vents. At that point the similarity ends.

"How do the bike and horse riding standards differ? The ASTM
F1163 equestrian standard allows the least amount of stretch
to the retention system - that's your jaw strap or harness.
Each standard tests the helmets by dropping them from a
specific height, at a specific speed, onto a steel plate.
Some drop test onto a flat surface, some onto a hemisphere
or curb-like surface. Equestrian helmets are also drop
tested onto a steel anvil with a ninety degree edge. It is
very wicked looking and is meant to simulate a crack by your
horse's hoof, or the edge of a barrel (attention barrel
racers!), or the top of a standard - all of which can be
equally wicked!"

From a website which sells riding helmets. It's far too nice
outside to trawl the web for the full text of the standard,
but if I get bored later I may just do that. I'd put good
money that the ASTM F1163 standard is considerably more
stringent than the current EU one for cycle helmets and
possibly even than the original Snell standard.

Quoted message said:

I don't believe so. A climber's helmet is designed to
protect the head from impacts from above. Cyclists' and
riders' helmets are designed to protect from impacts with
the ground.

A climber's helmet is also there to protect against smaller
side impacts such as those encountered when swinging on a
rope into a rock face. A horse rider is considerably more
likely to land on their helmet in a manner in which it will
help due to their increased height. (The same behaviour that
explains why toast almost always lands butterside down - New
Scientist passim)

Quoted message said:

The only case I have heard when a cyclist's helmet
protected the cyclist from an impact from above was an
irate motorist striking the cyclist with a stoplock.

Which is why I proposed that all cyclists carry some form of
mild weaponry (Screwdriver... Iron bar... glock!). I would
certainly recommend carrying a rape alarm since the noise
from these is certainly enough to "disable" and irate driver
(And draw attention to their behvaiour!).

Jon

Quoted message said:

* See "A complete history of the Milletts balaclava" by
Major Richard Sole for the full details

At last, someone who uses citations!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:18:02 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

We offer cycling proficiency training to all 10 and 11 year
olds. A few months ago I tried to get on a *free* trainers'
course. All London based ones were full.

My elder son already has his equivalent certificate, he did
it last summer (shortly after his ninth birthday).

Contact CTC, who were offering free courses for
trainers recently.

Quoted message said:

What I have taken issue with are those people, who like me
are anti compulsion, but:
a) manipulate statistics

Citations?

Quoted message said:

b) claim helmets are dangerous

Who could possibly suggest such a thing? Just because the
risk of injury has increased by 40% in the use while helemt
use increased from 17% to 50% is no indication that helmets
are to blame, just as the reports suggesting helmets may
worsen rotational forces implicated in the most serious
brain injuries can hardly be taken as evidence that helmets
may cause harm.

Mind you, the only absolutely provable link between hel;mets
and fatality rates are the children strangled by helmet
straps while playing...

Quoted message said:

c) ask "what about pedestrians?"

That is an entirely valid comparison. You still have not
answered this point: p[edestrians and cyclists have similar
proportions of head injuries, similar severity ratios, are
similarly vulnerable to motor traffic, both groups suffer
large numbers of trivial injuries, most serious injuries to
both groups are caused by motor traffic - in what way is the
comparison not valid?

Quoted message said:

d) call helmets special

Which they are - an extraordinary device whose use is
suggested only for cyclists, despite the irrefutible
evidence that cyclists are not especially at risk of
head injury.

Quoted message said:

e) suggest that promoting helmet use is irresponsible

Helmet promotion is not /necessarily/ irresponsible, it's
just that every piece I have seen int he UK /has/ been
irresponsible, for example greatly exaggerating the
protective effect of helmets. And all the effort being put
into helmet promotion serves only to draw the focus away
form things which would actually reduce risk, such as
maintenance and roadcraft.

Quoted message said:

f) claim that increased helmet use will inevitably lead to
a negative impact of cycle use

How could one possibly conclude such a thing? The fact that
it has been the case everywhere else doesn't /necessarily/
mean it will happen here.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:28:08 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

For children under 16 both riding and cycling are often
recreations.

And compared with other recreational activities in which
children engage, cycling is not especially likely to
result in head injury. The risk is about tha same as it is
for walking.

Quoted message said:

The point I'm making is that wearing a helmet is
nothing special as so many people wear helmets as part
of their lives.

And you then use a variety of highly specialised examples
to back up your bogus assertion.

So, tell me again why cycling should be regarded as so much
more dangerous than walking, which results in substantially
more injuries and about the same proportion of head
injuries?

Guy, I don't have the figures to hand and feel that your
figures must be derived from some manipulation of
statistics.

I strongly suspect that if we look at the age range 5 - 16
(the ages which would be most affected by the proposed
helmet law) that per mile travelled, a cycle head injury is
more common than a walking head injury by at least a factor
of 2. And even if we look at time spent walking and time
spent cycling head injuries are far more common.

But, if we look at the total number of head injuries, more
people have suffered injury while walking or in the home
than on bicycle. It is not a fair comparison.

BTW, I don't consider either activity as dangerous, and
promote both as a safe activities.

Tony Raven said:

Gonzalez said:

Cyclists are not singled out!!!

Sorry, I misunderstood Mr Martlew's Bill. I thought it
singled out cyclists. I didn't read the small print
definitions where it said "cyclist - anyone riding a
bicycle or walking"

God this is hard work.

Cyclists are not singled out for being the only people to
use helmets.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:30:33 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, tell me again why cycling should be regarded as so
much more dangerous than walking, which results in
substantially more injuries and about the same proportion
of head injuries?

Quoted message said:

Guy, I don't have the figures to hand and feel that your
figures must be derived from some manipulation of
statistics.

The figures are on my website, and if you want the source
data you are welcome to it. Your suggestion is grossly
offensive. You will note that in the recent debate, Fat Eric
used /my/ injury figures, not BeHIT's.

Quoted message said:

I strongly suspect that if we look at the age range 5 - 16
(the ages which would be most affected by the proposed
helmet law) that per mile travelled, a cycle head injury is
more common than a walking head injury by at least a factor
of 2. And even if we look at time spent walking and time
spent cycling head injuries are far more common.

We do not know because there are no mileage figures, but we
do know that for adults the pedestrian is actually somewhat
more likely, per mile, to suffer serious injury; by
extension, per /mile/ cycling is substantially safer, since
cyclists travel faster.

All we can do reliably is compare like figures with like.
So, for crashes noit involving motor vehicles, the
proporiton of head injuries for cyclists is similar to that
for all other causes. For crashes involving motor vehciles
the head injury proportions are also similar. The severity
ratio (KSI / all injuries) is also comparable (actually
slightly higher for peds). And five times more child
pedestrians die in road crashes, than child cyclists.

So even if you accept the Government's figures for
mitigation of serious injuries, and extend that to deaths
(which is questionable), mandatory helmet use has the
potential to reduce child road traffic fatalities by a
maximum of around 1%. What is the potential reduction from
home zones? Cycle training? Bike miantenance initiatives?
Increased penalties for lethally bad drivers? Nobody knows,
because everyone is spending all their time trying and
failing to reproduce Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

Quoted message said:

But, if we look at the total number of head injuries, more
people have suffered injury while walking or in the home
than on bicycle. It is not a fair comparison.

Whyever not? Do tell.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I don't consider either activity as dangerous, and
promote both as a safe activities.

Quite. So why do we "need" safety equipment when engaging in
an activity which is not dangerous?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Gawnsoft said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:43:34 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or
less): ...

Quoted message said:

Riders are recommended by the medical profession to wear
helmets. Cyclists are recommended by the medical
profession to wear helmets.

Taking the BMA as representing the medical profession, this
is an outright lie.

If the BMA is anything like the General Teaching Council I
would have to agree and withdraw the comparison.

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:49:25 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots,

But no helmet? Christ alive, man, don't you /know/ that
half of all head injury admissions are due to walking?

Really!? That low! I spend about 10 times longer each day
on my feet than I do on my bike - and I cycle much more
than most.

Just zis Guy, you know? [email hidden] opined
the following...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:08:00 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
family.com> wrote in message <[email hidden]-
berlin.de>:

Quoted message said:

Millets have never done knitted acrylic balaclavas. From
1950 to 1985 their balaclavas were knitted coarsest
sheeps wool and then from 1985 on they moved to knitted
polyester or polyester wool mix but never knitted
acrylic*

Cloff!

Post of the week, friend Tony :-D

Seconded.

Gonzalez [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

We offer cycling proficiency training to all 10 and 11
year olds. A few months ago I tried to get on a *free*
trainers' course. All London based ones were full.

I will (hopefully) soon be volunteering for the Bike
Station, and one of the projects they are interested in is
training volunteers to be able to run cycling proficiency
courses. Hopefully I will soon be encouraging more cyclists.

Quoted message said:

I cannot disagree with you here.

Thankyou.

Quoted message said:

Not for the first time I have found common ground with
someone in urc on the helmet issue.

What I have taken issue with are those people, who like me
are anti compulsion, but:
a) manipulate statistics

Guilty on both sides I imagine.

Quoted message said:

b) claim helmets are dangerous

There is some evidence.

Quoted message said:

c) ask "what about pedestrians?"

Again.

Quoted message said:

d) call helmets special

In this case I'd agree.

Quoted message said:

e) suggest that promoting helmet use is irresponsible

As I said above, I believe that mispromoting helmet use is
irresponsible.

Quoted message said:

f) claim that increased helmet use will inevitably lead to
a negative impact of cycle use

Good evidence of this one. It can't be guaranteed to be
the case in this country, but I would rather not take
the chance.

Not to go round in circles on this one, but I think I
probably do represent "the enemy" as far as your views are
concerned.

Jon

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:20:22 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Sitting on my bike, my head is about 1.90m off the ground.

Amazing. So you are 6ft 2 3/4" tall? When standing on level
ground my head is "about" 1.84m above the ground. Clearly I
require a hemlet when walking. Or is it the extra couple of
inches which makes the difference? Do tell.

I'm 6' 1", possibly 6' 2 3/4" on tiptoes.

Quoted message said:

And how high off the ground is your head when sitting on
your horse?

I have no high horse to sit on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a horse is scared it may throw the rider.

A bike with mechanical failure may throw the rider.

A bike with a very specific and extremely unlikely
mechanical failure may throw the rider. A horse overtaken
by an inconsiderate driver may do the same. What's more
common in your experience? Total seizure of the front
wheel, or inconsiderate motorists?

Quoted message said:

If a cyclist is knocked off a car (1000kg) may run
them over.

Oooh, nasty. Just as well they'll be wearing a 3/4"
thick piece of polystyrene on their head, I guess.
That's bound to help.

Quoted message said:

(In both cases a helmet may do little to protect).

Quite. The bin is over there, just drop that stinking red
herring in it, will you?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a cyclist falls off, the bike (~12kg) may land
on them.

Which on an unprotected head could result in nasty head
injuries.

Well, you know, I've fallen off my bike a few times, but it
hasn't yet conspired to land on my head...

Quoted message said:

Modern riding helmets are similar in design to cycle
helmets.

LOL! Read Brian Walker's analysis of modern cycle helmets
some time.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:36:24 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm 6' 1", possibly 6' 2 3/4" on tiptoes.

So not "about 1.90m" - an example of meaningless precision.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And how high off the ground is your head when sitting on
your horse?

I have no high horse to sit on.

Coulda fooled me ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:37:54 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

God this is hard work.

Certainly is, but we live in hope that you will eventually
understand...

Quoted message said:

Cyclists are not singled out for being the only people to
use helmets.

So, are child pedestrians being encouraged to wear them?
Five times the incidence of head injuries, surely muich
greater potential for savings. And as a bonus they will have
a helmet already when they come to cycle.

How about child car occupants? Most fatal head injuries
involve impacts of a scale beyond the capacity of a Formula
1 helmet, but at leasta child cra occupant could practically
wear a Formula 1 helmet. And more children suffer head
injuries as car passengers than as road cyclists.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:42:10 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots,

But no helmet? Christ alive, man, don't you /know/ that
half of all head injury admissions are due to walking?

Really!? That low! I spend about 10 times longer each day
on my feet than I do on my bike - and I cycle much more
than most.

And do you wear a helmet whenever you are around other
poeple? You /do/ know that more children suffer head injury
due to assault than due to cycling, don't you?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

What I have taken issue with are those people, who like me are anti
compulsion, but:
b) claim helmets are dangerous

I think it is fair to point out that there is research
suggesting that they could increase the likely-hood of the
most serious types of impacts, seeing as many people seem to
wear them to prevent brain damage or death. would like to
see this assertion coupled with more careful use of language
in most cases tho. And with links for people to look it up.

Quoted message said:

c) ask "what about pedestrians?"

Isn't this a fair point tho, assuming roughly equal levels
of head injury/death?

Quoted message said:

e) suggest that promoting helmet use is irresponsible

I guess a lot of people on the ng don't like the way that
they are often promoted by implying or stating that they
will save your life, when what they really should be saying
is that they may save you from being hurt.

Quoted message said:

f) claim that increased helmet use will inevitably lead to
a negative impact of cycle use

Hard to see how it couldn't in most circumstances, surely?
If they consider a helmet necessary or advisable, they are
less likely to cycle if they don't have one/don't wish to
mess their hair up. If kids think they look stupi they are
less likely to wear a helmet (and less likely to cycle if
their parents make them wear a helmet when they do so[1])

[1] However, style is a funny thing, so this may change. In
fact, increased wearing of cycle helmets could lead to a
greater acceptance and thus to their use by non-cyclists
as a fashion accessory. Particularly if they continue to
lower the standards so that the helmets can be made to
look even more stylish.

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

Guy, I don't have the figures to hand and feel that your
figures must be derived from some manipulation of
statistics.

The figures are on my website, and if you want the source
data you are welcome to it. Your suggestion is grossly
offensive. You will note that in the recent debate, Fat
Eric used /my/ injury figures, not BeHIT's.

Quoted message said:

I strongly suspect that if we look at the age range 5 - 16
(the ages which would be most affected by the proposed
helmet law) that per mile travelled, a cycle head injury
is more common than a walking head injury by at least a
factor of 2. And even if we look at time spent walking and
time spent cycling head injuries are far more common.

We do not know because there are no mileage figures, but we
do know that for adults the pedestrian is actually somewhat
more likely, per mile, to suffer serious injury; by
extension, per /mile/ cycling is substantially safer, since
cyclists travel faster.

The infirm rarely cycle, but comparatively frequently
fall over.

Why not just look at cyclists. Per mile walked by a regular
cyclist with per mile cycled by a regular cyclist. Which do
*you* think has a greater risk of head injury.

Quoted message said:

All we can do reliably is compare like figures with like.
So, for crashes noit involving motor vehicles, the
proporiton of head injuries for cyclists is similar to that
for all other causes. For crashes involving motor vehciles
the head injury proportions are also similar. The severity
ratio (KSI / all injuries) is also comparable (actually
slightly higher for peds). And five times more child
pedestrians die in road crashes, than child cyclists.

If children walk five times or more further than they cycle
then the risk is higher for the child cyclist.

Quoted message said:

So even if you accept the Government's figures for
mitigation of serious injuries, and extend that to deaths
(which is questionable), mandatory helmet use has the
potential to reduce child road traffic fatalities by a
maximum of around 1%. What is the potential reduction from
home zones? Cycle training? Bike miantenance initiatives?
Increased penalties for lethally bad drivers? Nobody knows,
because everyone is spending all their time trying and
failing to reproduce Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

Again you come at me as if I am campaigning for compulsory
helmet wearing. I am not.

I aim to encourage children to cycle and to wear helmets. I
also encourage cycle training, and along with my letter to
children promoting a cycle ride saying "don't forget your
helmet", I wrote "Please check your tyres, brakes and gears
(if you have any) on Sunday morning before we set off." So I
also promote cycle maintenance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, if we look at the total number of head injuries, more
people have suffered injury while walking or in the home
than on bicycle. It is not a fair comparison.

Whyever not? Do tell.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I don't consider either activity as dangerous, and
promote both as a safe activities.

Quite. So why do we "need" safety equipment when engaging
in an activity which is not dangerous?

I don't think of it as safety equipment any more than I
consider a waterproof for walking safety equipment.