Helmets ..... a- f*****g-gain

[Simonb]

Tina Eager wrote:

> In fact the only time I really needed to be wearing a helmet (crashed into a wall) I wasn't
> wearing one - but then I was playing squash! Spent a long time in Casualty though getting X-rays
> and so on.

Do you now wear a helmet to play squash?

Simonb

 

[Patrick Herring]

Dene Wilby <[email protected]> wrote:

| In article <[email protected]>, spam.trap100 @btinternet.com says...
| > Just out of interest,
| >
| > how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

Me.

| This argument always seems to run for ages but I can only see one sensible answer. Surely it HAS
| to be best to wear a helmet. Sure, if a car comes piling into you at 70mph then you're probably
| toast but what about all other eventualities?

It doesn't have to be 70mph. According to the helmet design standards a 30mph collision, in a 30mph
zone, could kill me even with a helmet on. I reckon my best bet is to help in promoting a road
culture in which there is the maximum perceivable vulnerability, which involves not allowing the
main sources of danger to pretend that I'm covered if they make a mistake.

I do make my kids wear helmets but that's because they still fall off at (pseudo-[1])random, and I
don't let them cycle in traffic yet anyway.

[1] I assume there is a control mechanism in there somewhere but it easily gets overidden it seems.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

Dene Wilby <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, spam.trap100 @btinternet.com says...
> > Just out of interest,
> >
> > how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
> >
> > pk
>
> This argument always seems to run for ages but I can only see one sensible answer. Surely it HAS
> to be best to wear a helmet. Sure, if a car comes piling into you at 70mph then you're probably
> toast but what about all other eventualities? An unexpected side swipe sends you down to the
> pavement, you don't have chance to fully react and your head hits the pavement. Who comes off best
> here....helmet or no-helmet.

According to the research, no-helmet. He's seven times less likely to hit his head at all, and very
considerably less likely to suffer a rotational injury which is what causes cognitive damage. Yes,
it's counter-intuitive. It's probably down to the fact that a head in a helmet is about twice as big
as a head not in a helmet, and consequently more likely to hit things.

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

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

 

[Tina Eager]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:26:45 UTC, "Simonb" <sbennettatwiderworlddotcodotuk> wrote:

> Tina Eager wrote:
>
> > In fact the only time I really needed to be wearing a helmet (crashed into a wall) I wasn't
> > wearing one - but then I was playing squash! Spent a long time in Casualty though getting X-rays
> > and so on.
>
> Do you now wear a helmet to play squash?
>
> Simonb
>
>
No, actually. I suppose, on the evidence that it's a dangerous game, I should, but I wasn't
travelling very fast - I just failed to stop.

--
Tina Eager

 

[Iarocu]

Dene Wilby <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, spam.trap100 @btinternet.com says...
> > Just out of interest,
> >
> > how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
> >
> > pk
>
Sure, it feels great without the helmet
> but I value my life much more than the slight discomfort of wearing the
> lid.
If avoiding risk to the exclusion of everything else was paramount we would sit in our houses all
day or travel in a car wearing a helmet and fireproof suit. If not wearing a helmet is an increased
risk (debatable) then I,ll take the risk for the increased enjoyment of the experience of cycling.
Concentrating on helmet use ignores the fact that most accidents are avoidable and educating cyclist
in correct riding habits should be the priority. I,m a non helmet wearer by the way!. cheers Iain C

 

[Pk]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> "PK" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Just out of interest,
>>
>> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
>
> Prior to joining this group and being exposed to the real figures, I rarely wore a helmet and then
> only for fast difficult downhills off-road. I now never wear a helmet because on the basis of the
> research evidence, under the conditions under which I used to wear one it would have been unlikely
> to do any good anyway.

I think the research evidence relates more to on road than off road use. I'd have thought fast
downhills off road was just the type of cycling to benefit from helmet protection.

Personally I wear on 100% off road, daytime on road about town - depends on where I'm going and how
familiar I am with the roads and route, going to the pub in the evening, always!

Before joining this group I used to wear one 100%

pk

 

[Simon Mason]

Dene Wilby <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, spam.trap100 @btinternet.com says...
> > Just out of interest,
> >
> > how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
> >
> > pk
>
> This argument always seems to run for ages but I can only see one sensible answer. Surely it HAS
> to be best to wear a helmet. Sure, if a car comes piling into you at 70mph then you're probably
> toast but what about all other eventualities? An unexpected side swipe sends you down to the
> pavement, you don't have chance to fully react and your head hits the pavement. Who comes off best
> here....helmet or no-helmet. It's a no- brainer. I just don't get it. Sure, it feels great without
> the helmet but I value my life much more than the slight discomfort of wearing the
> lid. They said that if Andrei Kivilev (sp?) would have probably survived if he was wearing a lid,
> that's enough for me. Here's a picture of my friend Michael on a training ride with Lance
> Armstrong. Hemlets galore.

Car drivers should wear them as well, since they are subject to serious head injuries in crashes.
After all, Formula 1 and rally drivers wear them...

--
Simon

 

[Johnb]

PK wrote:

> Just out of interest,
>
> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

I never wear one unless I've been forced to, like riding around the Hillingdon Cycle Circuit. I find
they affect the feeling of freedom too much when riding.

My wife has never ever worn one.

My four children only wear them if they themselves choose to which is very rarely. The younger ones
tend to follow what their friends are doing at the time, but none consider the helmet as a 'safety'
accessory. They are taught what is safe and what is not by riding on the road and learning from
their experiences and from their parents example.

My 14 year old sometimes rides the 8 miles to school and chooses not to wear one although the school
tries to say she should.

They all do wear them when cycle racing or when on Cubs/Scouts rides as they make it a compulsory
requirement of taking part (sometimes).

I've just come in from a 20 mile spin with my 9 year old daughter to the market. Today she chose to
wear a helmet because she found the 'peak' under her bed and wanted to try it out to shade her eyes
from the sun - she's lost her sunglasses. Such are children

John B

 

[Woody]

As someone who still has the scars on his leg from a 8mph 'crash' it is not protection from a
collision with a vehicle I wear one for but for the stupid little accidents we can all have that
quite easily involve your head and the the kerb.

However, I do agree it is personal choice and I would resist any legislation to make them compulsary

Woody

 

[Johnb]

Tina Eager wrote:

> It does no harm to wear a helmet,

It does if it means they don't cycle at all.

John B

 

[Keith Wootten]

In message <[email protected]>, PK <[email protected]> writes
>Just out of interest,
>
>how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

I never have. Presently it's a 20 mile round trip commute, although it's not always been that far.

I nearly always wear gloves and shoes though, except when I'm just nipping to the shops.

Cheers
--
Keith Wootten

 

[Zog The Undenia]

PK wrote:
> Just out of interest,
>
> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

No, although I do have one gathering dust just in case I ever want to get into a race. Never found
one that was comfortable or cool enough, and I survived perfectly well for two decades before some
bright spark in a marketing department came up the idea of helmets. Really, is 6 oz of polystyrene
going to do any good at all?

FWIW, I don't see why motorcyclists should be made to wear them either, even though theirs are
probably a lot more effective (they don't have the heat/sweat problem that compromises bicycle
helmet design so severely). It's their risk. I don't mind about wearing a car seatbelt as there's no
real comfort downside with inertia-reel belts.

 

[Richard Burton]

"Rod Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bkinng$675> how many of the regulars here
> *never* wear a helmet?
>
>My own issues are componded by the fact that since we chose to wear helmets
for the
> commute, my company has made it compulsory for any one cycling on its premises to wear a helmet
> (and issues them free).

What company would this be, and how did they justify the compulsion?

They did this at the same
> time as reducing the site speed limit to 20mph!

What a strange company you work for! They reduce the danger and still make you wear something which
has not been proven to protect in the real world.

>
> Conclusion: There is no right answer to this problem

Disagree. The right answer is to reduce the danger at source, and thoroughly enforce road law. And
b4 anyone flames me, yes, for cyclists as well.
>
> cheers

 

[Gary Sinnott]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:29:41 +0100, "Woody" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As someone who still has the scars on his leg from a 8mph 'crash' it is not protection from a
>collision with a vehicle I wear one for but for the stupid little accidents we can all have that
>quite easily involve your head and the the kerb.
>
>However, I do agree it is personal choice and I would resist any legislation to make them
>compulsary
>
>Woody
>

Although I'm pretty sure I've no cat blood in me, I have had one or two fairly impressive flying
lessons that have ended with me looking skywards wondering what day it was.

One in particular was after hitting a kerb at just under 30mph with 2 snapped brake cables (bad luck
or what?) and landing on a barbed wire fence. I got away with a couple of minor cuts, the fence
broke at a rotting post (more luck but better) but the front wheel was more like a pie with a
quarter piece removed. At the time I was more involved with looking at the speedo than the route
ahead so I could have avoided the crunch - saw the kerb at a distance of maybe 8-10ft (length of
skid mark from back tyre) and yanked both levers hard... twang. I think having pretty good reaction
times saved me from worse.

I spose that, so far, I've had mode good luck than bad so I've avoided having to factor in the size
& shape of a helmet if I go flying - it seems almost automatic to make that split second landing
arrangement than to add in the position my neck might be in if I land wrong with headgear.

Still, I hit 40 last month so my cycling habits have changed by the barest amount to accommodate my
new official status of being somewhere between "made of rubber" and "made of glass". I think my
reactions are still about the same as they were but that's probably down to being a pretty mean FPS
game player (UT, SOF, Half-Life, etc) and having more Coke (the drink, not the scummy powder) than
blood in my veins

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary at data dot mildenhall dot com
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Simon Brooke]

"PK" <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > "PK" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Just out of interest,
> >>
> >> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
> >
> > Prior to joining this group and being exposed to the real figures, I rarely wore a helmet and
> > then only for fast difficult downhills off-road. I now never wear a helmet because on the basis
> > of the research evidence, under the conditions under which I used to wear one it would have been
> > unlikely to do any good anyway.
>
> I think the research evidence relates more to on road than off road use. I'd have thought fast
> downhills off road was just the type of cycling to benefit from helmet protection.

The hemlet design parameters are for impacts of up to 12 miles per hour. Above that, they offer
little safety. But at the same time they increase your effective head size, so you're more likely
(both because of increased area and because of increased leverage) to suffer a blow which causes a
rotational injury. So in impacts aboce 12mph a bike helmet probably makes things worse, not better;
and on a fast downhill I'm exceeding its design capacity by at least 300%.

It's still a matter of personal judgement.

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

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The hemlet design parameters are for impacts of up to 12 miles per hour. Above that, they offer
> little safety. But at the same time they increase your effective head size, so you're more likely
> (both because of increased area and because of increased leverage) to suffer a blow which causes a
> rotational injury. So in impacts aboce 12mph a bike helmet probably makes things worse, not
> better; and on a fast downhill I'm exceeding its design capacity by at least 300%.
>
>

Ah, but what would you say is the design capacity of your head?

Rich

 

[Tony W]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Just out of interest,
>
> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

On road & flat, even tracks (e.g. towpaths & Sustrans) -- very, vary rarely.

Off road -- (i.e. 'proper' OR through trees, down hills or other stupid things) -- mostly.

T

 

[Richard Bates]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:21:10 +0100, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> in
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The hemlet design parameters are for impacts of up to 12 miles per hour. Above that, they offer
>> little safety. But at the same time they

>Ah, but what would you say is the design capacity of your head?

The design capacity of your head is biologically likely to be the speed at which an average human
can run, which is ???
--
A hippy goes up to a burger bar and asks the vendor, "Make me one with everything"

Stop sleeping to email me.

 

[Anonymous]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Just out of interest,
>
> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?

Only when on the MTB, which is not a great fraction of my mileage.

Rather than wear a helmet on-road, I merely have to learn to start braking a little earlier when
doing 57mph towards a sharp wet corner. (this was this afternoon, I made it entirely ok, it just
would have been extremely scary and probably painful if a car had come round it).

cheers, clive

 

[Stephen \]

Simon Mason wrote:
> "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:26:40 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of interest,
>>>
>>> how many of the regulars here *never* wear a helmet?
>
> I have never worn one, I think they foster a feeling of false security.I'd much prefer to avoid a
> collision in the first place than to rely on a helmet to bail me out.
> --
At the risk of inflaming this thread into the usual arguments do you really think that I go looking
to crash into cars as I am wearing a helmet? Your statement is absurd if you think about it.