Helmets

[Dave Kahn]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Although to be fair Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: they somply don't prevent the
> most serious injuries.

Isn't it just as simple to suppose that they mitigate some of the worst injuries and promote others
in about equal measure?

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Larrington]

NC wrote:

> According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats
> is from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Seems reasonable. Alain Prost's autobiography carried the tale of his relatives taking umbrage at
his career choice on the grounds that it was dangerous. Prost pointed out that he was far more
likely to be killed on the golf course than in a racing car...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Michael Macclan]

On 5 Feb 2004 03:05:34 -0800, Dave Kahn wrote:

> "MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
> berlin.de>...
>> Peter Taylor wrote:
>
>>> Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -
>>
>> Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge.
>
> He does appear to have trolled successfully in URC before. See
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O14652E47 .
>
> Full URL = http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
> eadm=bh89tq%24bpq%241%40hercules.btinternet.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
> 8%26q%3Dauthoreter%2540fponline.co.uk%2B

Calling him a troll on the basis of a couple of posts seems a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
--
Michael MacClancy Random pleonasm - ´Smoking can kill you, and if youÿve been killed, youÿve lost a
very important part of your life.¡ - attributed to Brooke Shields www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:41:10 +0000, Cardinal Fang <[email protected]> wrote:

> NC wrote:
>
>> This months Audax magazine carried a small amusing piece...
>>
>> According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats
>> is from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....
>>
>> Legislation for compulsory golf helmets can only be around the corner.
>>
>>
> There is a footpath near us that runs through a golf course. There are (were?) helmets available
> for use by walkers passing through.

I cycled along a lane beside a gold course while on holiday last year. The fairway ran along the
line of the road. Just as I passed by a golver was driving (the ball) but he sliced it and all I
could hear was the sound of a hard object repeatedly ricocheting off the surrounding trees either
side of the lane. It is the one time when I wished I had been wearing a helmet.

Colin
--

 

[Rob Bruce]

mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

> Prost pointed out that he was far more likely to be killed on the golf course than in a
> racing car...

Of boredom?

--
Rob

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Although to be fair Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: they somply don't prevent the
> > most serious injuries.

> Isn't it just as simple to suppose that they mitigate some of the worst injuries and promote
> others in about equal measure?

That's what we conclude, but Occam's Razor indicates that we should at least consider the
possibility that in fact they do bugger all.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:22:40 +0000, Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 5 Feb 2004 03:05:34 -0800, Dave Kahn wrote:

>> He does appear to have trolled successfully in URC before. See
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O14652E47 .
>>
>> Full URL = http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
>> adm=bh89tq%24bpq%241%40hercules.btinternet.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
>> 8%26q%3Dauthoreter%2540fponline.co.uk%2B
>
> Calling him a troll on the basis of a couple of posts seems a bit unreasonable, don't you think?

Possibly, but in the thread referenced he didn't once return to the debate after the initial post
despite several posts requesting clarification of the situation described. He hasn't, as yet,
returned to this debate. Although he has but two examples this is closer to what trolling is than
what those like Nugent do.

Colin
--

 

[Cccc]

In message <[email protected]>
"Peter Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.
>
> Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary - after two
> or three instances where wearing a helmet has saved me from a premature (in my opinion, others
> may beg to differ) end, I simply would not dream of cycling without one. And I would not let my
> kids do so either.
>
> And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head
> examining (and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic,
> sensible precaution.
>
> I understand the arguments about personal freedom of choice - but anyone with the time and energy
> on their hands to get exercised about this could find many other, more pressing issues to get
> their teeth into.
>
> Rant over chaps, as you were!
>
> Peter Taylor
>

********

>
>
>
>
>

--

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"RogerDodger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Perhaps the term 'troll' could be replaced (when the subject is helmets) with a better description
> - how about 'true believer' (Gonzalez - where are you?)

I use the term "Liddite" but True Believer would work just as well

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Doug Steel]

Found this old rec.humor.funny post - sums up the whole h*lm*t debate quite nicely

Doug

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/95q4/helmets.html

Bike helmet opinion form letter [email protected] (Timothy E. Vaughan) (original,
chuckle, USENET)

----------------------------------------------------------------
The following was posted to rec.bicycles.misc by Norman Carr, and I submit it to you with his
permission. I did some editing to make it a bit easier to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that the 'Great Helmet Debate' is not going to go away in a hurry, so may I
therefore suggest that in the future anyone wishing to post on this subject makes use of the
following all- purpose form to register their opinion. Simply edit as required then post, no more
composing erudite rebuttals of the other chaps point of view necessary!

Handy helmet opinion registration form:

[I / my (boy/girl)friend / child / cat / (other) _______ ] [was / were] [cycling / driving / walking
the dog] the other day. It was [light / dark / sunny / raining / snowing] when [I / they]
collided with a [car / bus / truck / other cyclist / tree / the ground / item of street
furniture / (other)] ________ which hit [me / them] [from behind / head on / from the side /
from above / from below]. [I / they] [was / were] [travelling at ____ Km/h / ____ mph /
stationary] at the time and [I / they] landed [head first / _____ first]. The ______ which hit
[me / them] was [trying to avoid an accident / silly / stupid / drunk / asleep / insane]. There
was [nothing / something] [I / they] could do to avoid the collision and it was [partly /
entirely] [my / their] fault.

[J / they] suffered [no injuries / minor head injuries / minor injuries (not head) / permanent
disablement / brain damage / death]. Boy, am I glad
[K / they] [was / were] [wearing / not wearing] a helmet.

I think this experience makes it obvious that it [should / should not] be a legal requirement for
[everyone / nobody / people below the age of consent / experienced cyclists / novice cyclists /
drivers / pedestrians / people walking dogs / dogs / bus drivers / people with inadequate medical
insurance / trees] to [always / sometimes / ocassionally / never] wear a helmet when [on the road /
off road / popping down to the shops / in the supermarket / cooking / using stairs / in bed].

Furthermore, I [have / do not have] the statistics to prove it. Thus, anyone who disagrees with me
is [free to do as they please / entitled to their opinion / misguided / stupid / mad / a danger to
democratic civilisation].

I hope you all find this a useful contribution to the debate.

Happy cycling [with / without] helmet,

Norman.

--------------------------------------------
And Tim Vaughan, his humble r.h.f publicist
--------------------------------------------

 

[Pete White]

"Rob Bruce" <robatanalytical-dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
> > Prost pointed out that he was far more likely to be killed on the golf course than in a racing
> > car...
>
> Of boredom?
>
> --
> Rob

F1 was a sport back when Alain started. It was the invention of semi-auto gearboxes and traction
control (SPIT!) that ruined the racing!

Pete White

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Isn't it just as simple to suppose that they mitigate some of the worst injuries and promote
> > others in about equal measure?
>
> That's what we conclude, but Occam's Razor indicates that we should at least consider the
> possibility that in fact they do bugger all.

That would imply they have no effect on the response of the head in an impact. That seems unlikely.

--
Dave...

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Doug Steel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/95q4/helmets.html

I [agree | disagree] entirely [ | :-/ | :-(]

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That would imply they have no effect on the response of the head in an impact. That seems
> unlikely.

It runs counter to what we've been told by doctors, for sure, but then much of what they have said
on the helmet issue has been discredited over time, so maybe the assertion that skull plus
polystyrene is significantly better than skull alone in preventing damage to the brain in serious
impacts is actually false.

I think we should at least be prepared to consider the possibility.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

[email protected] (Dave Kahn) writes:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Isn't it just as simple to suppose that they mitigate some of the worst injuries and promote
> > > others in about equal measure?
> >
> > That's what we conclude, but Occam's Razor indicates that we should at least consider the
> > possibility that in fact they do bugger all.
>
> That would imply they have no effect on the response of the head in an impact. That seems
> unlikely.

I agree with you. I just can't buy that. We can clearly see ways in which a helmet must change the
physics of the impact. They do not do 'bugger all'. Consequently we have to conclude from the
overall statistics that they do at least as much actual harm as good.

This is actually a rather hopeful observation. By studying when and why helmets do harm, we can
perhaps design helmets which do less harm less frequently. Of course, doing this will not solve the
problem of road users behaving irresponsibly.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,; /,
\'. _-' ,--,,,--''' { \ `_-'' ' / `;;' ; ; ; ._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.' (,_....----''' (,..--''

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It runs counter to what we've been told by doctors, for sure, but then much of what they have said
> on the helmet issue has been discredited over time, so maybe the assertion that skull plus
> polystyrene is significantly better than skull alone in preventing damage to the brain in serious
> impacts is actually false.
>
> I think we should at least be prepared to consider the possibility.

I think this is one that we can consider and safely reject.

Although, if we can find someone that does believe it they'll be some kind of anti-Liddite. We could
then throw them at BHIT and both would disappear!

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 03/02/2004

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > It runs counter to what we've been told by doctors, for sure, but then
much
> > of what they have said on the helmet issue has been discredited over
time,
> > so maybe the assertion that skull plus polystyrene is significantly
better
> > than skull alone in preventing damage to the brain in serious impacts is actually false.

> I think this is one that we can consider and safely reject.

Possibly, but I was mulling it over and it does seem to merit investigation at least. Assuming the
outcome you were looking for to have been countered by some other unforeseen outcome is inherently
less believable than assuming the outcome you were looking for did not in fact happen, after all.

Maybe we're up against Schrödinger's Helmet here. Or the Helmetberg Uncertainty Principle. Or
something.

> Although, if we can find someone that does believe it they'll be some kind
of
> anti-Liddite. We could then throw them at BHIT and both would disappear!

That's an attractive thought

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Possibly, but I was mulling it over and it does seem to merit investigation at least. Assuming the
> outcome you were looking for to have been countered by some other unforeseen outcome is inherently
> less believable than assuming the outcome you were looking for did not in fact happen, after all.

But doesn't it fly in the face of ALL research. Both 'real world' and lab based?

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> That would imply they have no effect on the response of the head in an impact. That seems
>> unlikely.

>I agree with you. I just can't buy that. We can clearly see ways in which a helmet must change the
>physics of the impact. They do not do 'bugger all'. Consequently we have to conclude from the
>overall statistics that they do at least as much actual harm as good.

from <url:http://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/faq.html>

4. What kind of protection does a helmet provide?

Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line (linear) blows only. Test procedures set by
standards bodies like Snell, ANSI, and CPSC require a helmet containing a 5kg (11lbs) rigid headform
to be dropped onto a flat anvil from a height of 1.5 to 2.0 metres (5ft to 6ft 8in). If more than
300g's is imparted to the headform the helmet cannot be certified.

The helmet's outer shell is designed to mitigate the effects of an impact by spreading the force
over a greater area of the head and by reducing friction in a slide. The helmet's liner, however, is
made of stiff foam and requires a certain minimum force before it starts to crush. Until this
minimum is reached, the head must absorb the impact. Once the minimum is reached, the helmet's liner
absorbs energy until either all the remaining energy is absorbed or the liner has been crushed to
its minimum thickness. If the blow is of such severity that the liner gets crushed to its minimum
thickness, remaining energy is absorbed by the head and is likely to be enough to be lethal.

This means for a fall, whilst helmets are designed to limit the impact (deceleration) to a just sub-
lethal level, they won't reduce it much below that. In these cases, "sub-lethal" translates into
anything from a very bad concussion to a coma. Any impact of greater severity than received in a
typical fall will be lethal.

The medical profession now believes that even lesser accelerations can produce serious injury and
that the 300g level is too high. However, it is unlikely that helmet standards will be raised to
provide significant protection because the industry doesn't believe that consumers would buy the
resulting products.

The trend is in the opposite direction. In Australia, the standard was actually lowered because
helmets produced under the old standard did not meet with market acceptance. Manufacturers are
presently responding to market demand for helmets which improve air-flow inside the helmet and to
fashion by manufacturing helmets with more holes them. While these pass standard tests, they spread
impacts over a smaller area of the head, so when an impact occurs it will be more concentrated
around the center of the impact."

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> That would imply they have no effect on the response of the head in an impact. That seems
>> unlikely.

>I agree with you. I just can't buy that. We can clearly see ways in which a helmet must change the
>physics of the impact. They do not do 'bugger all'. Consequently we have to conclude from the
>overall statistics that they do at least as much actual harm as good.

from <url:http://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/faq.html>

4. What kind of protection does a helmet provide?

Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line (linear) blows only. Test procedures set by
standards bodies like Snell, ANSI, and CPSC require a helmet containing a 5kg (11lbs) rigid headform
to be dropped onto a flat anvil from a height of 1.5 to 2.0 metres (5ft to 6ft 8in). If more than
300g's is imparted to the headform the helmet cannot be certified.

The helmet's outer shell is designed to mitigate the effects of an impact by spreading the force
over a greater area of the head and by reducing friction in a slide. The helmet's liner, however, is
made of stiff foam and requires a certain minimum force before it starts to crush. Until this
minimum is reached, the head must absorb the impact. Once the minimum is reached, the helmet's liner
absorbs energy until either all the remaining energy is absorbed or the liner has been crushed to
its minimum thickness. If the blow is of such severity that the liner gets crushed to its minimum
thickness, remaining energy is absorbed by the head and is likely to be enough to be lethal.

This means for a fall, whilst helmets are designed to limit the impact (deceleration) to a just sub-
lethal level, they won't reduce it much below that. In these cases, "sub-lethal" translates into
anything from a very bad concussion to a coma. Any impact of greater severity than received in a
typical fall will be lethal.

The medical profession now believes that even lesser accelerations can produce serious injury and
that the 300g level is too high. However, it is unlikely that helmet standards will be raised to
provide significant protection because the industry doesn't believe that consumers would buy the
resulting products.

The trend is in the opposite direction. In Australia, the standard was actually lowered because
helmets produced under the old standard did not meet with market acceptance. Manufacturers are
presently responding to market demand for helmets which improve air-flow inside the helmet and to
fashion by manufacturing helmets with more holes them. While these pass standard tests, they spread
impacts over a smaller area of the head, so when an impact occurs it will be more concentrated
around the center of the impact."

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk