Helmets - Personal Experience

Spencer Bullen said:

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs. Both resulted in tumbles over
the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers, and on both occasions I was wearing a good quality
helmet (Specialised MTB first time, Selev Alien the second). On both occasions I was able to walk
away, but the helmets were cracked and written off.

[censored], aren't they? My mate Albert is over 70, he took a header and his headgear was fine. A CTC
cotton cap. Unlike the 70-year-old in Reading, whose similar tumble proved fatal due to a subdural
haematoma (I hope it wasn't exacerbated by his helmet, but the evidence indicates that this is
possible).

This destruction indicates that the helmet was stressed beyond its desing parameters.

Quoted message said:

On this newsgroup I never see people screaming to have the seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet laws
repealed,

Really? Better go back and read a bit more, then. The seat belt law caused the largest recorded rise
in cyclist, rear seat passenger and pedestrian fatalities - and the effect on driver fatalities was
unmeasurably small. Just like in every other country before and since. Which the Government knew in
advance and chose to keep quiet.

Quoted message said:

so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet.

We're not, we're anti-compulsion. Almost all of us believe that it should be left to the individual.
Most of those castigated as beign anti-helmet actually wear them at least some of the time.

We're opposed to compulsion because the evidence is that there is no correlation between helemt
usage rates and head injury rates at the population level. The evidence is also that aggressive
promotion deters cycling, and compulsion deters cycling strongly.

Quoted message said:

I don't necessarily think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time, but
I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

Sadly there is no proof to back this assertion.

If you care that much, you should buy a helmet which is as smooth and featureless as possible, with
a hard outer shell and no vents.

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

Spencer Bullen said:

Greetings,

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs. Both resulted in tumbles
over the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers, and on both occasions I was wearing a good
quality helmet (Specialised MTB first time, Selev Alien the second). On both occasions I was
able to walk away, but the helmets were cracked and written off. To me this proves some impact
was taken by the plastic and polystyrene that would have otherwise gone to my (admittedly
tiny!) brain.

On this newsgroup I never see people screaming to have the seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet laws
repealed, so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet. I don't necessarily
think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time, but I think to deny
the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is ridiculous.

Actually I *would* like to see motorcycle helmet laws repealed and I envy those parts of America
where you can ride with a pair of shades (bandana optional). Seatbelts are a more difficult one
because unbelted rear passengers can hit those in the front and kill them, so there are other
parties to consider. On balance I'd have to say that wearing a modern inertia-reel seatbelt is no
inconvenience or discomfort, so the law doesn't adversely affect anyone and there are sufficient
exemptions such as reversing, large delivery vehicles etc.

In a supposedly free country, it's reasonable that people with knowledge of the risks
associated with an activity should be allowed to take those risks if they choose, provided they
harm no-one else.

Spencer Bullen wrote: ,

Quoted message said:

...I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

Me too.

Another helmet thread to be deleted.

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:26:29 -0000, "Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't necessarily think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time,
but I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

Sadly there is no proof to back this assertion.

Out of interest, is a £99 Giro helmet any more *protective* than a £20 Giro helmet? The more
expensive one isn't sold as being safer, just slightly better ventilated and "what the pros use". I
suspect they offer the same protection and cost roughly the same amount (a fiver?) to make. Unless
anyone knows otherwise...

1) An unusual hanging basket. Well vented helmets may need some kind of liner inside.

2) A device to protect your tortoise from next door's dog.

3) *MOST USEFUL*: To dangle from my belt/bag/rucksack so that people in WHSmith realise I am a
cyclist and not just some [censored] wearing silly skintight dayglo clothes.

Next ... ?
--
I remember when the internet was only in black & white. It only had a few pages but at least they
all worked. Email: Put only the word "richard" before the @ sign.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:41:42 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

On balance I'd have to say that wearing a modern inertia-reel seatbelt is no inconvenience or
discomfort, so the law doesn't adversely affect anyone and there are sufficient exemptions such as
reversing, large delivery vehicles etc.

Plus it allows you to push the envelope a bit more without dying, which is good news for everyone.
Except cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and other drivers.

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

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:48:44 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Out of interest, is a £99 Giro helmet any more *protective* than a £20 Giro helmet? The more
expensive one isn't sold as being safer, just slightly better ventilated and "what the pros use". I
suspect they offer the same protection and cost roughly the same amount (a fiver?) to make. Unless
anyone knows otherwise...

You will probably find that the £99 one is *less* protective. Tjhe Australian standards had to be
relaxed to allow modern highly-ventilated helmets.

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

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:26:29 -0000, "Spencer Bullen"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

Spenny,

In the early 1990's nine out of ten cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90
standard. By all of the helmets were manufactured to EN1078. Almost all helmets tested to EN1078
fail to mee the more stringent Snell B-90 standard. Some helmets on sale even fail EN1078. (see
Which?, October 1998).

Or put another way, first find your GOOD QUALITY helmet.

Note: All the major pro-helmet studies were conducted during the period of compliance with earlier
standards.

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

In message <[email hidden]>, Spencer Bullen
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On this newsgroup I never see people screaming to have the seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet laws
repealed, so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet.

Anti-compulsion does not equal anit-helmet.

Quoted message said:

I don't necessarily think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time, but
I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate)

I think the quality of Helmets is much of a muchness

Quoted message said:

helmet is
ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that you find it worthwhile to start another helmet thread - if you really are
interested in the arguments surely one of the recent ones would suffice? Do you really think
anything new is going to be added to the debate?
--
Chris French, Leeds

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Zog The Undenia

Actually I *would* like to see motorcycle helmet laws repealed and I envy those parts of America
[/B]

Zog - have a look at this site: http://www.bikersrights.com/
- it has a helluva lot of useful info re - helmets USA.

Also:
http://www.autobox.com/borntobewild.
“BORN TO BE WILD”
The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s
Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law
on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates
LISA STOLZENBERG
STEWART J. D’ALESSIO
Florida International University
In response to political pressure, the state of Florida repealed its mandatory motorcycle helmetuse
law for all operators and passengers older than the age of 21, effective July 1, 2000. Using
monthly data and a multiple time-series design, the authors assessed the effect of this law change
on serious injury and fatality rates for motorcycle riders aged 21 and older. Controls for serious
injury and fatality rates for motorcycle riders younger than 21 years of age were included in the
analyses. Maximum-likelihood results showed that the repeal of the mandatory helmet-use law
in Florida had little observable effect on serious injuries or on fatalities that resulted from
motorcycle crashes. Policy implications of these findings are discussed, and explanations are
given as to why the repeal of the mandatory motorcycle helmet-use law in Florida was
inconsequential.
[EVALUATION REVIEW, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-150
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X02250524
© 2003 Sage Publications]

Roger

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actually I *would* like to see motorcycle helmet laws repealed and I envy those parts of America
where you can ride with a pair of shades (bandana optional). Seatbelts are a more difficult one
because unbelted rear passengers can hit those in the front and kill them, so there are other
parties to consider.

Yebbut, as far as I'm concerned the driver is the "captain" of the vehicle and responsible for the
passenger's safety as well as his/her own. To this end he/she can insist the passenger behind wear a
belt. Regarding securing minors maybe its fine for compulsion as they can't decide for themselves
and will get thrown around in a RTA. This is not quite the same as making the wearing of helmets for
minors compulsory, most of their cycling is more a form of play and if they need a helmet for this
they certainly need one for using, or even being near, playground appartus. As is usual there will
always be grey areas.
--
Regards, Pete

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greetings,

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs.

Both

Quoted message said:

resulted in tumbles over the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers,

Perhaps more important than the helmet would be better anticipation and better braking technique.

With practice, it is possible to emergency brake in a panic without going over the handlebars.

Spencer Bullen said:

Greetings,

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs. Both resulted in tumbles
over the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers..

On this newsgroup I never see people screaming to have the seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet laws
repealed,

Err, the clue may be in the newsgroup title. It starts cyc----.

Quoted message said:

so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet.

That's not true. Most seem to be anti-compulsion.

Quoted message said:

I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

So did your GOOD QUALITY helmet prevent he accidents you were involved in?

Choose an answer:
a) No
b) No
c) No

John B

Just zis Guy said:

Spencer Bullen said:

I don't necessarily think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time,
but I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
ridiculous.

Sadly there is no proof to back this assertion.

If you care that much, you should buy a helmet which is as smooth and featureless as possible,
with a hard outer shell and no vents.

A new skull?

John B

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 10:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

if they need a helmet for this they certainly need one for using, or even being near, playground
appartus.

Or not. A number of children have been strangled by helmet straps on playground equipment. Dangerous
things, helmets.

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

Zog The Undeniable said:

Out of interest, is a £99 Giro helmet any more *protective* than a £20 Giro helmet? The more
expensive one isn't sold as being safer, just slightly better ventilated and "what the pros use".
I suspect they offer the same protection and cost roughly the same amount (a fiver?) to make.
Unless anyone knows otherwise...

Whiich one is more likely to stop the driver hitting you?

I think we should be told.

John B

But wearing a helmet doesn't address the root cause of the problem - poor/inconsiderate motorists.

Spencer Bullen said:

Greetings,

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs. Both resulted in tumbles
over the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers, and on both occasions I was wearing a good
quality helmet (Specialised MTB first time, Selev Alien the second). On both occasions I was
able to walk away, but the helmets were cracked and written off. To me this proves some impact
was taken by the plastic and polystyrene that would have otherwise gone to my (admittedly
tiny!) brain.

On this newsgroup I never see people screaming to have the seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet laws
repealed, so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet. I don't necessarily
think introduction of compulsory laws are a good use of parliamentary time, but I think to deny
the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is ridiculous.

I await the backlash.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

--
Pete

interchange 12 for 21 to reply

"W K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UCTUb.6937$u47.4474@news-
binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

Quoted message said:

Greetings,

in the last 6 years commuting into London, I have twice been in RTAs.

Both

Quoted message said:

resulted in tumbles over the handlebars thanks to thoughtless cagers,

Perhaps more important than the helmet would be better anticipation and better braking technique.

With practice, it is possible to emergency brake in a panic without going over the handlebars.

A valid point. However, in the circumstances of the 1st was being hit from behind, the other
involving a cager hitting me from the front by cutting into incoming traffic...........

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:45:02 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

With practice, it is possible to emergency brake in a panic without going over the handlebars.

Piece of cake. Unless you're riding an upwrong, of course....

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