Helmets - Personal Experience



S

Spencer Bullen

Guest
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repealed, so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet.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
 
J

Just Zis Guy

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

>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.

****, 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.

>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repealed,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.

>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.

>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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Z

Zog The Undenia

Guest
Spencer Bullen wrote:
> 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.
 
M

Mseries

Guest
Spencer Bullen wrote: ,
> ...I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
> ridiculous.

Me too.

Another helmet thread to be deleted.
 
Z

Zog The Undenia

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

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

>>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...
 
R

Richard Bates

Guest
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 **** 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.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:41:42 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:48:44 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
J

Just Zis Guy

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

>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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
C

Chris French

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, Spencer Bullen
<[email protected]> writes
>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.

>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

> 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
 

RogerDodger

New Member
Jan 10, 2004
388
0
0
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
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
 
W

W K

Guest
"Spencer Bullen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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,

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.
 
J

Johnb

Guest
Spencer Bullen wrote:
>
> 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----.

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

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

> 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
 
J

Johnb

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:26:29 -0000, "Spencer Bullen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >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
 
J

Just Zis Guy

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

>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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
J

Johnb

Guest
Zog The Undeniable wrote:

> 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
 
P

Pete Whelan

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

Spencer Bullen wrote:
> 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
 
S

Spencer Bullen

Guest
"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Spencer Bullen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > 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,
>
> 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...........