Helmets - mean time betweef failures

[Random Data]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:55:40 +1100, ProfTournesol wrote:

> somebody please end it by talking about the nazis. see
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Isn't there a codicil that you can't deliberately invoke Godwin's Law?
Typical Netiquette Nazi behaviour that.

..sig Heil!

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
I have an asteroid named after me. Isaac Asimov's got one too. It's
smaller and more eccentric. - Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Terry Collins]

Rayc wrote:

> at no point did I say people had to spend a minimum of $100,

Oh good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.


> get off the soapbox and stick to the topic, some thing about "whats a
> reasonable time frame for helmet replacement ( dont know if you
> actually read any of it)

Naah, it is as boring as the helmet debate.
1) you replace the foam liners
2) you can no longer get foam liners, so you make your own replacement.
Finally you find something useful for a terry towelling hat {
3) make another set,
..
..
..
n) eventually you replace the helmet because the outer plastic shell
cracks (I haven't done that yet).

I guess I have a very different perspective because I started riding on
a MSR bicycle helmet which had a different, very stiff foam to the
polystyrene **** that todays helmets have.

aka how big a headache are you prepared to stand when you do crash is
really what it is all about. New polystrene is softer. Old polystyrene
is harder.

 

[L'acrobat]

"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> L'acrobat wrote:
>> "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
>>>more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
>>>(annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free
>>>to do so.
>>>
>>>Otherwise your opinion is noted
>>
>>
>> The doctor (a friend) who I consulted as soon as I realised where I was
>> and what had happened, was of the opinion (from the pattern of injuries)
>> that without a helmet, I'd have landed on my temple and probably would
>> have died.
>>
>> Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
>> Doctor.
>
> Good god why? even a neurologist is unlikely to be an expert on inpact
> prevention by helmets. Thats an insane attitude. Wery like my going with
> the opinion of my mechanic as to the efficiency of seatbelts.

Because she has worked in emergency wards and seen the ones who survive and
the ones who don't, funny - actual experience V your opinion.

>
> I would go with the opinion of the helmet makers if anyone. And I so
> doubt they would say the helmet has saved your life.
>
> Does your doctor ride? Does he own a helmet? Can he descibe its
> compositon and crash absorbance mechanism. If so his opinion is worth
> exactly what anyone elses of this forums is

As noted above, she has seen the injury patterns that kill without a helmet
on.

Now, for whatever reason you have some great personal investment in
believing that your theory is worth the same as that of a Dr who has actual
experience in the field.

Very simply it is my experience that, when theory and reality contradict
each other, you drop the theory.

Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[Terry Collins]

L'acrobat wrote:

> As noted above, she has seen the injury patterns that kill without a helmet
> on.

And?
Did she also supply information on badly fitted helmet?
properly fitted helmets?


> Very simply it is my experience that, when theory and reality contradict
> each other, you drop the theory.

Only when it compares apples with apples.
Subject recollection is not valid scientific evidence.
And education does not make subjective observation any more valid.

Now, if she has been collecting detailed notes on all bicycle related
accidents over the decade or so, then she might have a valid
contribution. which is why I asked about badly fitted helmet and
properly fitted helmets. And if she includes a category where people
were injured worse because they were wearing a helmet, then I'll listen
to her and her opinion.

err, perhaps she has had a paper published?

 

[Terry Collins]

dave wrote:
> L'acrobat wrote:

>> Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
>> Doctor.
>
> Good god why? even a neurologist is unlikely to be an expert on inpact
> prevention by helmets. Thats an insane attitude. Wery like my going
> with the opinion of my mechanic as to the efficiency of seatbelts.

Yep, I thought my GP was great as a decade ago his action provided a
quick and accutrate diagnose for a condition that was increasingly
debilitaing,

Along comes a second, much more common condition and I gradually realise
that he is really floundering and so is the first specialist he refers
me to (even though he rides a bicycle, although not relevant). Finally a
second, third and fourth specialists (other areas) provide some real
insight into 5this condition and I only ended up going to them on a
fluke because I needed pieces of paper.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Rayc wrote:
> Bravo!,
>
> I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on
> the off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
> something that you have control over.
> I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
> line choices)
>
> but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
> helmet on.

So you're going out this avo to buy a helmet to wear in your car?
Did you hear the comment from one of the survivors of the Egyptian bus
crash? "Yes I knew the bus was fitted with seat-belts but no-one else was
wearing them and I didn't want to look like a woose".

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

L'acrobat wrote:

> Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
> Doctor.

Is this doctor a member of the same AMA that wants to ban motorcycles and
remove bicycles from all roadways?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Rayc wrote:
> well, in my case, I feel it to be important that I at least give my
> self the best chance of coming out of a blow to the head accident ok.
> After all I have a loving partner, and family, and resposiblitlies to
> them. Not to mention that I have financial responsibilities to my
> partner in the form of a mortage.
> Thats a resposible attitude no?
>
> Why wouldnt I want to protect myself? and as for the price of $100
> dollars - thats not much at all

$100? Is that all your head is worth? I suggest you go and buy a $100,000
helmet. You owe it to your family.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Rayc wrote:

> get off the soapbox and stick to the topic, some thing about "whats a
> reasonable time frame for helmet replacement ( dont know if you
> actually read any of it)

Last time I checked it was > 20 years. I think that worked out to $3.50 a
year.

> Gee terry why dont you give us your " the usually load of scummy ****
> because it is easier to **** on other people than present their own
> 2c." and contribute to the discussion instead of jumping in and
> slagging someome off.

Don't get excited, your head will overheat in that helmet.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

ProfTournesol wrote:

> somebody please end it by talking about the nazis.

They had plain helmets, the Kaiser's soldiers had the spikey ones.

Theo

 

[Rayc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
> $100? Is that all your head is worth? I suggest you go and buy a $100,000
> helmet. You owe it to your family.
>
Well yours must not be worth anything! if you've not bought a helmet in
twenty years. Not to mention that you feel nothing for your family

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Rayc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> $100? Is that all your head is worth? I suggest you go and buy a
>> $100,000 helmet. You owe it to your family.

> Well yours must not be worth anything! if you've not bought a helmet
> in twenty years. Not to mention that you feel nothing for your family

It's not worth much to me. My family is wholly independent (translation: All
my kids live in bigger houses than I and earn twice as much money, they
don't need my income). That does not mean I do not feel for them, quite the
contrary. You appear to think you partake in a dangerous pastime and feel
you need to invest $100 for the sake of your family. A $1M life policy would
be much better. I partake in a safe pastime and have no fear of the
consequences. I rode for 40 years without needing a helmet and 20 years with
one.

I just don't believe they do much. I do always wear one however and see that
it is fitted properly and comfortably. My $3.50 a year investment keeps the
sun off my (spreading) bald patch and saves me $50 every time I pass a
policeman. I reckon in twenty years it has saved me $thousands, and some
serious sunburn.

I sometimes partake voluntarily in a pastime that actually involves some
danger. When I do I wear a helmet with a visor, gloves, $280 boots and
flame-proof fire-fighters overalls.

Now where is your $100,000 helmet?

Theo

 

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:36:15 +1100, Terry Collins wrote:

> Rayc wrote:

>
> And what I said was that was a load of ****. There are some people who
> can not afford to spend $100 per annum on a bicycle helmet, but you
> don't have the understanding of other people and their life experiences
> or situaions. End of story.
>
>>
>> Its not just about the nows but also the future, prehaps your happy to
>> become a burden on your family and society for the rest of your life
>> just because you refused to protect your self
>
> Yep, I've been hearing that **** since the fscking quacks starting
> demanding that helmets be made compulsory.
>
I must own up to being a fscking quack. I have also bicycled reasonably
continuously for 50 years, most of that time without a helmet.
At first I half believed the hysterical propaganda which lead to helmet
use being made compulsory. After all, fscking quacks have to believe
their own propaganda, don't they?
About 5 years ago I was troubled by a (NZ) Land Transport Safety Authority
report, largely un-noticed at the time, which stated that serious injuries
and deaths to bicyclists were reducing less, percentage-wise, than for
other road users. A flag went up in my brain.
Then 3 years ago I saw a photo in the paper of two people enjoying a
gentle country bicycle-ride through the vinyards of Hawke's Bay. Their
faces and best features were hidden by helmets. I thought, "Wait a
minute, what is so dangerous about a gentle ride through the countryside
which makes helmets necessary?"
So I made the mistake of trying to read the actual evidence for the
efficacy of bicycle helmets.
Unfortunately, as a result of this, this fscking quack became vehemently
anti-compulsion within two months.

Peter.

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

 

[Euan]

"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> writes:

> "EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Rayc Wrote:
>>>
>>> Bell ran an ad a couple of years ago in the US, something like $100
>>> feet - $5 head
>>> Crazy to think that we are quite happy to spend $1000+ for a bike,
>>> $200+ on shoes, tyres all the time, constant servicing and on it goes
>>> but not on a helmet! - madness.
>>>
>> That all depends on whether you believe helmets do the job they claim.
>>
>> Consider: the chances of having an accident on a bicycle are about the
>> same as those of having an accident as a pedestrian. Out of all those
>> accidents approximately one percent involve a head injury. That's a
>> pretty low risk and for many people hardly worth taking measures
>> against.
>
> Except when you do the basic risk management practice and also look at both
> the potential consequences of such an injury and the cost to protect against
> it.
>
> Possible death or permanent disability v a $30.00 helmet.

It's not about the money, my helmets considerably more expensive than
$30

> As someone who has come off a bike totalled a $30.00 helmet in the process
> and gotten away with a concussion and a missing 6 hours from my life, I'd
> say the money was well spent.

You believe that, but you don't know it. You have no idea whether
having the helmet on saved your brain or not and it's impossible to
prove. I very much doubt the helmet saved your life if all you had was
six hours concussion and you'll not convince me otherwise.

I'm not arguing against wearing a helmet, I'm arguing against
compulsion. Two very different arguements.

> BTW, I'd like to see a cite that suggests you are as likely to have an
> accident as a cyclist as you are as a pedestrian - I suspect that you have
> either guessed, misinterpreted or misread the statistics.

I think it was on Guy Chapman's site. Google it if you're that
interested, I've better things to do.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Peter Keller wrote:

> I must own up to being a fscking quack.

You *******!

> I have also bicycled
> reasonably continuously for 50 years, most of that time without a
> helmet.

Ditto.

> Unfortunately, as a result of this, this fscking quack became
> vehemently anti-compulsion within two months.

Congratulations Peter. But, but, don't you feel that you are irresponsible
and callous towards your family if you don't buy a new $100 helmet every two
or three years?

You're not the doctor Keller that was with the Red Cross in Perth until
recently, are you?

Cheers
Theo

 

[Euan]

"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> writes:

> Very simply it is my experience that, when theory and reality contradict
> each other, you drop the theory.

That's fair.

Experience.

Six, went head first over the handlebars in to a concrete lamp post.
Two stitches, helmet may have helped but guess what? I'm still alive.
[No helmet]

Twelve, tennis racquet holder on the front forks worked loose while I
was doing about 30. Did prompt endo with head smacking in to tarmac.
Very bruised, whole front of bike less handlebars totalled.
Massive bruises all over, mild concussion. Helmet may have helped a bit
but hey guess what? I'm still alive. [No helmet]

Fourteen, coming off of roundabout at about twenty five. Smack straight
in to car pulling out of parking bay, typical SMIDSY (it was my
geography teacher, I wasn't THAT bad in class!), ended up sprawled all
over the road. Smashed up left side of face, MASSIVE bruise all down
arm but hey, guess what? I'm still alive. [No helmet]

Thirty six. Lysterfield, off roading. Clear first log jump on the
track, bungle the second and nose dive in to the dirt. Back of head and
right shoulder take impact. Took me a couple of seconds to realise that
I'd hit my head. Helmet staved off a bruise but hey guess what? I'm
still alive. [Helmet]

The human skull's a lot tougher than most people give it credit for.
The average helmet offers a lot less protection than most people credit
it with.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[TimC]

On 2006-01-16, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> So you're going out this avo to buy a helmet to wear in your car?
> Did you hear the comment from one of the survivors of the Egyptian bus
> crash? "Yes I knew the bus was fitted with seat-belts but no-one else was
> wearing them and I didn't want to look like a woose".

I can't quite remember -- was he the cop? If so, what a wonderful
message.


What a great service he did for everyone. "I am a hard man, and I
survived the crash despite not wearing my seatbelt. You too don't
need to wear a seatbelt, unless you are a pansie."

--
TimC
Tim flies like an arrow -- Donald Weldh on RHOD

 

[TimC]

On 2006-01-16, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I just don't believe they do much. I do always wear one however and see that
> it is fitted properly and comfortably. My $3.50 a year investment keeps the
> sun off my (spreading) bald patch and saves me $50 every time I pass a
> policeman. I reckon in twenty years it has saved me $thousands, and some
> serious sunburn.

You really should get a new helmet though. The vent pattern of
sunburn on a balding head is a serious fashion statement.

--
TimC
I found love in rhod and you can too...well, not all of
you...not the smelly amongst you -- Kimberly Chapman

 

[Rayc]

Euan wrote:
> It's not about the money, my helmets considerably more expensive than
> $30

No its not, its about (if you believe helmets work), finding a
reasonable length of time between having bought a helmet and
purchasing a helmet, so as to have the most effective shock absorber (
again- if you believe in the process working)

If you are going to wear a helmet, why not get it to do the best job it
can?

 

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:44:55 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Peter Keller wrote:
>
>> I must own up to being a fscking quack.
>
> You *******!
>
>> I have also bicycled
>> reasonably continuously for 50 years, most of that time without a
>> helmet.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Unfortunately, as a result of this, this fscking quack became
>> vehemently anti-compulsion within two months.
>
> Congratulations Peter. But, but, don't you feel that you are irresponsible
> and callous towards your family if you don't buy a new $100 helmet every two
> or three years?

Not at all! :=)) I am under no illusions as to the protective value of
helmets. I only wear one because i can do without the hassle from the
cops. And I also ride my bike a lot less than I should because I find the
fscking things so damn' uncomfortable! Oh how we do many irrational
things because other people seek to appeal to our consciousness "humanity"
or "Responsibility to society" or make something out to be much more
dangerous than it really is. They must enjoy having power over us to be
able to modify our behaviour like that.

> You're not the doctor Keller that was with the Red Cross in Perth until
> recently, are you?

No I am not, sorry. I am an anaesthetist in Wellington.
>
> Cheers
> Theo

Cheers Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --