OK, gotta ask this one.

  • Thread starter Trudi Marrapodi
  • Start date



On 10 Jun 2004 14:37:43 -0700, [email protected] (blah) mumbled
incoherently:

>[email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>Now, I don't know how much protection the helmet provided
>> or if my injury would have been worse without the helmet, but I am
>> glad I had it on.
>>
>> **** Durbin
>> Tallahassee
>
>Over here in Australia it's illegal not to wear helmets. Civil liberty
>issues aside, I've never really understood why you wouldn't.
>I've devised a test for seeing if they work:
>
>Have a friend (or enemy, it doesn't matter) hit you, with a bat, on
>the head with moderate to hard force. Try it twice; once with the
>helmet then once without. It's important not to do it in reverse
>order. When you wake after the second hit, you can compare the
>relative value of wearing the helmet as opposed to not.
>
>Cheers
>
>PS. I'm aware that a cycling accident is a lot more complicated than
>this, but I'd rather hit the road (pun not intended) with it on. Oh
>yeah, feel free to use this test to demonstrate to the next pickup
>driving nutbags you see...

Uh oh. My helmet-thread alarm needle just went off the paper.
<Ducking>


Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime headed by
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime,"
--1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads
till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of
the rest, make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time or the
wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your head (and most people know
know how to roll into a fall....)


"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > - Now, without moving your feet, start to lean/tilt forward. You'll
> likely
> > get off balance soon, but keep your hands at your sides and resist the
> > temptation to stop tilting forward or to put your hands out to stop your
> > fall.
>
> You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
>
> Pete
>
>
 
The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a bike helmet is needed.
I can only hope the response posts to mine were being just
friendly-sarcastic, because if they were real, I'd say that more people
should ride without helmets and just let Darwin do his work ;-)


"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>
> > So the test I ask people to take is this....
> >
> > - Put your feet together, stand straight up, facing forward, hands at
your
> > sides....
> >
> > - Close your eyes.
> >
> > - Put your head down, chin to your chest.
> >
> > - Now, without moving your feet, start to lean/tilt forward. You'll
likely
> > get off balance soon, but keep your hands at your sides and resist the
> > temptation to stop tilting forward or to put your hands out to stop your
> > fall.
> >
> > - Keep leaning till your head impacts the cement.
> >
> > - That's from standing still. Now imagine being on a bike, a foot or
so
> > higher off the ground, with any type of forward momentum on top of that.
> >
> > No one I know has ever actually done this till they fell, but it drives
the
> > point home.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Hmm. Seems that test applies VERY precisely to people walking.
>
> Have you convinced many pedestrians to wear helmets?
>
> (After all, their fatality numbers dwarf those of cyclists, so it sounds
> like a good idea!)
>
> --
> --------------------+
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
> replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
>
 
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time or the
> wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your head

You will do this first of everything else, to seek how to make good use of
hands and arms, so you have enough time, except (1) blind flight, since the
mind is temporarily off, watching the wrong movie, except (2), mainly, when
losing time because of hesitating too long to react seriously.

And, as it looks like, except (3) for the new variation of kharma,
representing the 'protected ones', which have the delicious enlightenment in
the right moment: oh! I am protected!, thus a luxury of spending a very
loooong superfluos thought, so just to prevent, what could have been done
right elsewise. In short: seriously handicapped in perception.

Should this be one of those crowns of upmost level of insight in
civilisation, when mainly the youth is trained now, to refrain from keeping
everyones' body-moves inline with physical reality? Because, oh! everyone is
protected!? With the strong believe, after 'protection' could be found as a
label in a warehouse, there cannot be anything better?

Now, who dares to bring-up real statistics, will count hurt necks and broken
teeth in the neighbourhood of schools? There should already be figures from
observations about difficulties of motoric co-ordination (now here we have
as well an artificially imposed handicap to learn how to react
appropriately). Who will count real use, of those and of those, on the
street and setting the relation right, of how many, of those and of those,
have been found being hurt? Taking into account such imposed handicaps,
like broken capabilities for motoric co-ordination?

I am afraid, yes, there is protection envolved: for the warehouse fetish.
All those figures about protection, propagated in favour of firm believe,
quite for sure would look different elsewise.


[and why to append that redundancy without thought:]
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
[..?]
 
Dave wrote:
>
> The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a bike helmet is needed.

But does it illustrate at all, how the devices available for sale
function as a bike helmet? If they did anything, we'd be seeing a
decrease in brain injury rates as helmet use went up. The human
head is already designed to protect the brain when you fall down,
and a foam hat doesn't seem to add much protection.

Mitch.
 
Dave wrote:

> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
>
> No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time or the
> wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your head (and most people know
> know how to roll into a fall....)

Speaking of which, I *do* wear a helmet, and I've taken plenty of falls,
but the helmet's never come in handy. During a fall, that is. It's
been useful to ward off stray branches while I'm still on my bike, but
at spill time, I either hit the ground ungracefully with hands and
knees, or I do spectacular full somersaults onto my back. If I *really*
cared for my bodily integrity, I'd wear knee pads, elbow pads, and a
flak vest. B{D>


--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.
 
Only thing I can say is from personal experience, I've witnessed nasty
crashes at speed (30+) as well as touring paces where the helmet has come
into play in preventing severe injury. A member of my team recently was
doing TT training, and a SUV pulled into the bike lane and stopped abruptly
in front of him. He was going about 32mph, and went right into the back,
and had he not been wearing a helmet, we'd have gone to his funeral. And
being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds, where
the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel comfortable in saying,
saved many a cracked skull. It's not a perfect shield of course, but it
helps....

Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not there, you can't
make judgements, and in fact, we don't even know all of it because the
police are still involved as are the insurance companies, so the family is
not allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the helmet. Let's
face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what anyone else thinks?

Dave

"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a bike helmet is
needed.
>
> But does it illustrate at all, how the devices available for sale
> function as a bike helmet? If they did anything, we'd be seeing a
> decrease in brain injury rates as helmet use went up. The human
> head is already designed to protect the brain when you fall down,
> and a foam hat doesn't seem to add much protection.
>
> Mitch.
 
Scott Eiler <[email protected]> writes:

> Dave wrote:
>
> > "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
> >
> > No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time or the
> > wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your head (and most people know
> > know how to roll into a fall....)
>
> Speaking of which, I *do* wear a helmet, and I've taken plenty of
> falls, but the helmet's never come in handy. During a fall, that is.

I know someone who has a small bald patch on the top of his head as
the result of a fall without a helmet. He had a bad headache and saw
double for some time (a few hours to a day or so - I forget the
details). In his case the crash was completely unexpected. He was
riding at a moderate speed on a college campus. I forget if he
collided with another bike or not.

BTW, probably most people don't know how to roll into a fall, even
if racers typically do.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Dave wrote:
>
> being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds, where
> the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel comfortable in saying,
> saved many a cracked skull.

How in the world do you know that?
Have you ever seen a fractured skull from a bike crash?
The only one I have experience with was on an 80 year old woman,
who was wearing a Bell Tourlight (hard shell, no longer available)
when her tandem tipped over sideways after a dog took out the front
wheel. I don't blame the helmet, I suspect her skull shattered
because it was old and thin. I'd imagine the docs were glad the
helmet kept the dirt and gravel out of her head. I never saw her
or her husband at club rides after that, I think they quit riding.

I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody wore
helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood everywhere from a hole
in my scalp, but no concussion or other brain injury.
If I had destroyed a helmet in that crash, I'm sure you'd be
claiming the helmet saved me from certain brain injury or death.
 
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave" <[email protected]>
mumbled incoherently:

>Only thing I can say is from personal experience, I've witnessed nasty
>crashes at speed (30+) as well as touring paces where the helmet has come
>into play in preventing severe injury. A member of my team recently was
>doing TT training, and a SUV pulled into the bike lane and stopped abruptly
>in front of him. He was going about 32mph, and went right into the back,
>and had he not been wearing a helmet, we'd have gone to his funeral. And
>being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds, where
>the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel comfortable in saying,
>saved many a cracked skull. It's not a perfect shield of course, but it
>helps....
>
>Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not there, you can't
>make judgements, and in fact, we don't even know all of it because the
>police are still involved as are the insurance companies, so the family is
>not allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the helmet. Let's
>face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what anyone else thinks?
>
>Dave

Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped out on his
bike, (wheel shimmy) slid across six lanes of traffic, and hit his
head on the far curb. He told me about it, showing me his helmet which
had split in half. He complained about the scrapes he received on his
legs and arms as well as the loss of paint off his racing bike, but
there he was, talking to me, no apparent damage to his head. Not even
a scrape.
Years ago, I mentioned this in one of these bike groups, and
was attacked for weeks. They first said the accident could not have
happened. (Wrong, as I proved.) Then they told me the helmet could not
have possibly saved him. Lastly, they threw all sorts of statistics at
me, intended to show that bike helmets cannot possibly save someone
from injury.... but the fact remains, he is uninjured. Hard to
explain, but there it is. This group is just not freindly to helmet
wearers who claim injury protection from them.
I meant this just as a freindly warning, but I see the jackals
have already begun to attack.

Cordially,

Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime headed by
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime,"
--1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads
till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of
the rest, make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave" <[email protected]>
> mumbled incoherently:

> >Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not there, you can't
> >make judgements, and in fact, we don't even know all of it because the
> >police are still involved as are the insurance companies, so the family is
> >not allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the helmet. Let's
> >face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what anyone else thinks?

> Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped out on his
> bike, <snip>
> I meant this just as a freindly warning, but I see the jackals
> have already begun to attack.

I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets provide some
useful protection* for some riders (but not claiming they would
protect you from gross stupidity such as riding the wrong way without
lights at night and getting into a head-on with an 18-wheeler
traveling at 50 mph).

This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the archives if
you** want, but don't restart the argument.

Bill

* Defined as saving more over time in medical costs, time lost from
work, etc. than the helmet and periodic replacements cost, and
considering the differences in annual mileage.

** "you" in the plural, impersonal sense addressing random readers.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
So as long as there's no brain injury it's fine to not bother with a helmet?
Why do people here insist on putting words into other people's mouths
(posts) when it's not stated in the post? Sheesh. All I said was that I've
seen nasty crashes that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry if
not for a helment, okay?

I don't give a **** what you do. I'm not saying to ride with an armor
suit; just some extra protection for your head. Seems like a pretty smart
thing to do.

Tell ya what... Ride. Ride with one. Ride without one. I don't give a
****. I just thought some people might benefit from some sound advice to
not bother what people think about you wearing a helmet, and better safe
than worry about what they think.



"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds,
where
> > the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel comfortable in
saying,
> > saved many a cracked skull.
>
> How in the world do you know that?
> Have you ever seen a fractured skull from a bike crash?
> The only one I have experience with was on an 80 year old woman,
> who was wearing a Bell Tourlight (hard shell, no longer available)
> when her tandem tipped over sideways after a dog took out the front
> wheel. I don't blame the helmet, I suspect her skull shattered
> because it was old and thin. I'd imagine the docs were glad the
> helmet kept the dirt and gravel out of her head. I never saw her
> or her husband at club rides after that, I think they quit riding.
>
> I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody wore
> helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood everywhere from a hole
> in my scalp, but no concussion or other brain injury.
> If I had destroyed a helmet in that crash, I'm sure you'd be
> claiming the helmet saved me from certain brain injury or death.
 
Yeah; I knew there was a reason I ignored reading/posting on around on
newsgroups for a while; just remembered why...

Dave

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave" <[email protected]>
> > mumbled incoherently:
>
> > >Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not there, you
can't
> > >make judgements, and in fact, we don't even know all of it because the
> > >police are still involved as are the insurance companies, so the family
is
> > >not allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the helmet.
Let's
> > >face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what anyone else thinks?
>
> > Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped out on his
> > bike, <snip>
> > I meant this just as a freindly warning, but I see the jackals
> > have already begun to attack.
>
> I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets provide some
> useful protection* for some riders (but not claiming they would
> protect you from gross stupidity such as riding the wrong way without
> lights at night and getting into a head-on with an 18-wheeler
> traveling at 50 mph).
>
> This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the archives if
> you** want, but don't restart the argument.
>
> Bill
>
> * Defined as saving more over time in medical costs, time lost from
> work, etc. than the helmet and periodic replacements cost, and
> considering the differences in annual mileage.
>
> ** "you" in the plural, impersonal sense addressing random readers.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Dave wrote:
> Sheesh. All I said was that I've
> seen nasty crashes that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry if
> not for a helment, okay?

No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody else to say
they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely would have resulted in
severe head injury if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
Get it yet?
Mitch.
 
Mitch Haley <[email protected]> writes:

> Dave wrote:
> > Sheesh. All I said was that I've
> > seen nasty crashes that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry if
> > not for a helment, okay?
>
> No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody else to say
> they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely would have resulted in
> severe head injury if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
> Get it yet?
> Mitch.

Yeah. Any indication, whether anecdotal or a result of a carefully
run research project, that shows a non-zero benefit for helmet use
*must* be ignored, with the authors discredited and anyone mentioning
the results attacked. Standard modus operandi.

BTW, some of these guys *did* at one point claim that helmets cause
injuries by "sticking" to the pavement (unlike a head where the skin
simply abrades) or increasing one's moment of inertia so one would be
more likely to hit one's head in a fall. None of the anti-helmet
people stated that this argument was "not OK" at the time it was
being trotted out.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." wrote:
> Yeah. Any indication, whether anecdotal or a result of a carefully
> run research project, that shows a non-zero benefit for helmet use
> *must* be ignored, with the authors discredited and anyone mentioning
> the results attacked. Standard modus operandi.

Name calling will get you nowhere, Bill.
Besides, I'm not the one who got in a childish tiff
with a professional researcher on this board a few
years ago, that was you.

Mitch.
 
All I get from you is that you appear to be the kind of person who likes to
argue for, what it seems, argument's sake.

And BTW, read what I wrote, nitwit. *I* have seen crashes, that certainly
would have resulted in severe head injury if not for the helmet. So,

Unless you were there too, shut up and don't tell me what I saw, or what my
opinion should be.

Get it?




"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> > Sheesh. All I said was that I've
> > seen nasty crashes that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry
if
> > not for a helment, okay?
>
> No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody else to say
> they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely would have resulted in
> severe head injury if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
> Get it yet?
> Mitch.
 
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:14:56 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
mumbled incoherently:

>> Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped out on his
>> bike, <snip>
>> I meant this just as a freindly warning, but I see the jackals
>> have already begun to attack.
>
>I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets provide some
>useful protection* for some riders (but not claiming they would
>protect you from gross stupidity such as riding the wrong way without
>lights at night and getting into a head-on with an 18-wheeler
>traveling at 50 mph).
>
>This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the archives if
>you** want, but don't restart the argument.

That's good advice.


Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime headed by
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime,"
--1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads
till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of
the rest, make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
Dave wrote:
>
> And BTW, read what I wrote, nitwit. *I* have seen crashes, that certainly
> would have resulted in severe head injury if not for the helmet. So,

And I asked you, in my original reply, if you'd ever seen a crash of
similar severity in which the rider was hatless and did indeed
suffer such injury. If you have seen several helmeted and non-helmeted
crashes and can coment on the difference, I'd be glad to hear your
observations. Barring that, it appears that you are extrapolating from
an observation of helmet use to a prediction of helmet non-use and
calling it a certainty. Name-calling does not make circular logic
valid, and you've not yet given evidence here that you do know what you
are talking about, just insisting that anybody who doesn't take your
word for it is a nitwit. It is as if I insulted your religious beliefs.
(maybe I have, for all I know)

If all the helmet-saved-a-life stories were true, bicycle deaths in
the non-helmet era would have rivaled automotive deaths. I know more
people who believed a helmet saved their lives than I know who died
in cars, I suspect most of us do. For the record, the only person
I ever met who later died on a bicycle was right-hooked by a semi truck.
The trailer ran right over her, making a human pancake. I don't know
if she had a helmet, nor do I care. Bicycle brain injuries are so rare,
and shattered helmets so common, that I'm not willing to use the latter
as evidence of the former.
Mitch.
 
....stuff deleted
>
> I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody wore
> helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood everywhere from a hole
> in my scalp, but no concussion or other brain injury.
> If I had destroyed a helmet in that crash, I'm sure you'd be
> claiming the helmet saved me from certain brain injury or death.

It is kind of disingenuous to deny that fractured skulls occur.

I, for one, fractured mine when I was cycling down a steep hill and the
inexpensive bike I was riding began to wobble uncontrollably (that is,
beyond my control at the time). I was 12 or 13 at the time. I had ridden at
speed before, but never on such a poorly assembled bike. With the experience
I have now, I probably would not have crashed. I hit the brakes (coaster
brakes) and they locked. My momentum took me through the u-shaped handle
bars (stingray type bicycle on which I had little experience). I remember
looking up at the sky through the pedals (at least one foot was still on
them) when my head hit the ground. The resulting head injury was likely to
have been reduced by a helmet (I landed on the back of the skull, doing 3/4
of a complete flip), as it was a direct impact with little chance of any
rotational effect, the kind of blow for which the shell was supposedly
designed.

Still, the added padding might well have added to a potential neck injury as
it might well have pushed the head further forward than it was designed to
go. Had this happened, the neck injury could well have been fatal. A helmet
may just as well have been effective in this accident. As you point out, it
is impossible to know. It is obvious that helmets may well protect from
certain types of injuries, just as shoulder pads and helmets help protect
football players. There is no doubt, however, as with football helmets, that
they make some injuries worse. Risk compensation, a pet idea of one
anti-helmet advocate, is also a factor to be considered (football players
use their heads to drive into traffic, sometimes causing severe injuries to
one player or both, something they would not likely do without the imagined
protection a helmet provides).

Some will not look at the issue with any degree of logic, and this is
ludicrous. Helmets are, IMO, a waste of money, for the most part. They do
protect from some injuries and potentially cause others, which may well be
more severe. The statistics suggest that they do reduce head injuries, so in
that they are somewhat successful. The statistics also suggest that they do
not improve odds of survival, strongly suggesting that there are many
categories of accidents, such as:

- those in which cyclists cannot survive, regardless of protective gear
- those in which helmets mitigated injury and which are not reported, as a
result
- those in which helmets would have worked had the cyclist not assumed an
attitude of invulnerability
- those in which helmets change the injury site from head to the neck (and
which are thus, not reported, as head injuries and are ignored by the
statistic gatherers)

And I am certain that if I spent more time on this, I could expand the list.
In truth, it doesn't matter. None of the reports I've read even come close
to knowing the actual statistics on anything except total deaths. Most of
those fit in the not-survivable category and are, statistically, meaningless
(though the stats people don't think so).

So, give it a rest. We cannot know this stuff, despite how certain you are
of your beliefs.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back