Paramount

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

If you had to walk around with a weight vest adding
that much more weight to your body, you wouldn't notice it all all,
right?

Michael Warner said:

Of course I'd notice it initially, but not for long, and it wouldn't cause
any muscular or nerve problems.

OK, but Tim was talking about aggravating a preexisting nerve situation.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

G.T. said:

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 11:48 am, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
>>>> protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.
>>> Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
>>> truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".
>>> --
>>> David L. Johnson
>>> The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.
>> I don't give a hoot if people wear helmets or not. However, I was in
>> two bike accidents in which I hit the helmet, and the helmets cracked
>> both times and my head was left intact. In one occasion, my head hit a
>> car and the helmet cracked in half. I passed out and woke up 4 hours
>> later in the emergency room. I got a replacement helmet and a
>> certificate that read "saved by the bell".
>> The other occasion, my helmet hit the ground and I felt it bouncing up
>> and down before sliding on the pavement. On that occasion, my helmet
>> saved skin too and it cracked.
>> I have no way of knowing the extent of my injuries had I not been
>> wearing a helmet. I know that there would have been direct impact w/
>> my head and at least, more serious injury could have happened. I
>> believe that the injuries would have been likely very serious. so, I
>> wear a helmet pretty much all the time.
>> OTOH, my brother who is not a cyclist came to visit me this week. On
>> 7/04, we went out for a ride and he asked if he could wear my helmet.
>> I let him use it and rode w/o a helmet. I have very short hair and
>> ended up burning my head under El Paso's 100 degree heat and sun.
>> I am one of those that ,while not fanatic about people wearing
>> helmets, believe that helmets can save people from much more serious
>> injury. This is only from personal experience.
> HOW DARE YOU?!??!?
You guys are funny. In the face of overwhelming physics you still cling
to your anecdotes and misconceptions. Do you believe the earth is flat?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Greg
--http://ticketmastersucks.org
Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132

Quoted message said:

What anecdotes and misconceptions are you talking about. I don't
believe in any theory pro or against helmets. I simply can tell you
what happened to me when I fell. I hit something with my head very
hard, but thank budah, there was a helmet.
betwwen my head and the other hard surface.

And what are your reasons to think that a thin piece of styrofoam did
anything but prevent superficial cuts and abrasions? You don't really
think that styrofoam prevented brain injury, do you?

Greg
--http://ticketmastersucks.org

Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132

Actually, I am not sure of what it prevented, but it prevented more
than it would have prevented had I hit my head. Here is an experiment
of what you can do. See how high you need to drop a heavy object on a
helmet for it to fully crack in half. Or, see how hard you need to
slam a helmet against an object for it to crack in half.

Once you determine the force of the impact, then, imagine hitting your
head with the same force and seeing what happens. I don't feel like
doing the experiment, but I believe that it takes quite some force to
crack the helmet in half. I wouldn't have liked to hit my head with
the same force.

Maybe you are right, had I not wore the helmet, I wouldn't have
sustained more serious damage than I did. consider that with the
helmet on, i still passed out for four hours. it is possible that the
impact was at a threshold where any more force would have caused
serious damage. It is also possible that it wasn't. To argue one way
or the other is hypothetical and we would never know. I chose to
believe that it would have caused serious damage. you chose to believe
that it wouldn't have. neither one can be totally certain, so I
choose to wear a helmet. You choose not to and I have no problems with
that.

However, for you to conclude that the helmet wouldn't have protected
me is totally unscientific and stubborn. I accept that statistically
there is little chance of getting hurt if you don't wear a helmet.
However, the probability is not 0, and I have been in the standard
deviation. I don't want to be in the standard deviation without the
helmet considering that I cracked two already.

Andres

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

If people want to wear helmets while cycling, I say go for it, take
advantage of a bizarre cultural moment. But pushing helmet use on
others would be an odious thing imo even if helmets were clearly
beneficial (people have plenty to worry about themselves without
getting up in other peoples' bike business).

Agreed. So why are many of the same people who are anti-lid also
anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on school papers
and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?

ANYONE?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And anyone who
consciously feels that wearing of the helmet makes them safer is
probably worse off than they would be without it.

Silly. Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
however, even if it didn't, one would hardly be "worse off" for
using it. (Just substitute "condom" for "helmet" and... never mind.)

Its not silly, it is call "risk compensation" - the cyclist takes more
chances because of a false belief in the extent of the foam hat to
protect his/her head.

The hypothesis of the greater effective head diameter from wearing a
foam hat leading to a greater severity of rotational head and neck
injuries should not be dismissed so readily.

You make total BS sound almost plausible. Well done, son!

BS (partially, at least)

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;

Quoted message said:

Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense; and B) at least you didn't delete the semi-colon,
indicating further thought (and that the previous words were incomplete on
their own). In this case, the very next words were, "however, EVEN IF IT
DIDN'T"...

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Michael Warner said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:29:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> In my case, wearing a helmet is a balance between the slight
> possibility that it might protect me in the remote chance that I
> crash, and the certainty that the weight of the helmet will cause
> me neck and shoulder pain.

Are you serious? I've never heard that one before.

At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than
the average AHZ will allow!

Noting that I rather heavily qualified this, I can conceive of crashes
in which a helmet might help me, even though I am rarely riding within
those parameters.

Now, there was an incident in which I do think my helmet did help me.
A bit over four years ago I was knocked off my bike by a group of four
"youths" and assaulted (Cedar Lake Trail near downtown Minneapolis
between I394 and I94, for those of you familiar with the area; there
was a string of about five such incidents that summer). Broken tooth,
nondisplaced nose fracture, bruising over my kidneys and a smashed
helmet from them punching at my head once they had me down. I think
that a helmet absorbs a punch pretty well. So much for "Minnesota
nice," though.

Well that sucks. Condolences.

It is interesting that a helmet could so readily absorb/deflect blows from
fists or feet, yet apparently not from pavement, branches, curb edges, etc.
Seems to me it either PROTECTS or it does not. My experience (and yours,
too) is that is /does/.

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;

Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense; ...<snip>

It is also 'common sense' that wearing an oblong-shaped structure on
your head which makes your head area twice as big and has big holes
all over it will make it much more likely that your head or neck will
be twisted in a collision. Now which is more important -- protecting
your head against minor scrapes and ouchies or the possibility of
making a bad impact into a deadly impact with shearing force? It's
common sense isn't it?

Robert

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If people want to wear helmets while cycling, I say go for it, take
> advantage of a bizarre cultural moment. But pushing helmet use on
> others would be an odious thing imo even if helmets were clearly
> beneficial (people have plenty to worry about themselves without
> getting up in other peoples' bike business).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. So why are many of the same people who are anti-lid also
anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on school papers
and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?

ANYONE?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you are talking about
somebody specifically (Frank?), address them. I like transfats and
can't get enough of the tug-of-war. Sometimes I watch SUV Tug-of-War
while snacking on a bowl of pure lard.

What I have seen are plenty of self-described free-thinkers, even
'libertarians,' who feel the need to judge out loud and pontificate to
unhelmeted riders. They take it upon themselves to enforce the
unwritten uniform code of the Real Cyclist, on dirt and road. Here we
are, resting by the trail, and along come some other bikers. Lo and
behold, <<doubletake>> this guy's not wearing a helmet! What a perfect
opportunity to show how superior, clear-headed, and in-control I am
with a few sharp comments .... These people don't give a flying f*@#
about the safety of others. Their helmet preaching is just part of a
larger personality issue. The 'sport of cycling' is heavily burdened
with these types. If not helmets, something else.

Robert

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Try to guess which helmet sells for $175, which for $85, and which
for $24:

Cheap helmets look like foam salad bowls, expensive helmets look like
birds of prey. They cost about the same to manufacture so to encourage
the punters to make more profit for the helmet company, the cheap
helmets are made to look dorky.

Dear Tim,

Here are the three helmets again:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3784-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3693-RDS-ANGLE.jpg

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3688-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

One is $175, one is $85, and one is $24--which one looks "dorky"?

My point is that if the price tags are removed, even the salesmen will
have trouble telling one from another. They are, after all, just
styrofoam with lots of holes, some straps, and a shiny colored kin of
plastic.

Dip them in white paint or put tape over the brand name, and
identification becomes really difficult.

In this case, even the brand name is a bit deceptive. Giro was bought
by Bell in 1996:

http://www.helmets.org/bellgiro.htm

Eye-catching and functionally useless hats have always been status
symbols:

http://www.crazycrow.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=620-250-000

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/pope_hat_cp_6211150.jpg

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/images/200/BHC/28/BHC2889.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krone_Kaiser_Rudolf_II_Kaisertum_%C3%96sterreich.jpg

The two obvious fashion functions are to show that the wearer belongs
to whatever group wears the hat and to make the wearer look taller.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;

Quoted message said:

Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense;

Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me with
the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need science.

Quoted message said:

and B) at least you didn't delete the semi-colon, indicating further
thought (and that the previous words were incomplete on their own).
In this case, the very next words were, "however, EVEN IF IT
DIDN'T"...

I was responding to the first clause, obviously.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill

Sornson said:

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:29:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> In my case, wearing a helmet is a balance between the slight
>> possibility that it might protect me in the remote chance that I
>> crash, and the certainty that the weight of the helmet will
>> cause me neck and shoulder pain.
>
> Are you serious? I've never heard that one before.

At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than
the average AHZ will allow!

Noting that I rather heavily qualified this, I can conceive of
crashes in which a helmet might help me, even though I am rarely
riding within those parameters.

Now, there was an incident in which I do think my helmet did help
me. A bit over four years ago I was knocked off my bike by a group
of four "youths" and assaulted (Cedar Lake Trail near downtown
Minneapolis between I394 and I94, for those of you familiar with
the area; there was a string of about five such incidents that
summer). Broken tooth, nondisplaced nose fracture, bruising over
my kidneys and a smashed helmet from them punching at my head once
they had me down. I think that a helmet absorbs a punch pretty
well. So much for "Minnesota nice," though.

Well that sucks. Condolences.

Thanks. It did suck.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that a helmet could so readily absorb/deflect blows
from fists or feet, yet apparently not from pavement, branches, curb
edges, etc. Seems to me it either PROTECTS or it does not. My
experience (and yours, too) is that is /does/.

The force of a punch thrown by a teenager is a lot less than the force
of 210 pound me banging my head into a solid object at 20+ mph. Therein
lies the difference in protection. As I said I can conceive of some
types of impact where a helmet might offer protection. And I can
conceive of crashes where it would not.

In article <[email hidden]>,

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

If you had to walk around with a weight vest adding that much more
weight to your body, you wouldn't notice it all all, right?

Michael Warner said:

Of course I'd notice it initially, but not for long, and it
wouldn't cause any muscular or nerve problems.

OK, but Tim was talking about aggravating a preexisting nerve
situation.

That's a good clarification. The helmet did not cause the problem, it
only aggravates it. I think this is probably an unusual situation at
least I've not heard anyone else make the same complaint. I do know
people with similar problems who ride recumbents or sit-up-and-beg bikes
because craning their neck to look up the road aggravates their pain. I
haven't gotten to that point, and I hope that the percutaneous
discectomy is perfected before I do.

I wonder if wearing a helmet increases the risk of developing Shermer
neck on ultralong distance rides. It's another very unusual situation,
although I saw a bunch of cases at PBP 2003. They were all wearing
helmets, but almost everybody was and thousands of people wearing
helmets were unaffected by this, so maybe helmets are a coincidence
rather than a contributor.

http://www.ultracycling.com/training/neck_pain.html

It's unusual to talk to someone who has to hold their head up with their
hands to look at you. One of the dangedest things I've ever seen.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> If people want to wear helmets while cycling, I say go for it,
>> take advantage of a bizarre cultural moment. But pushing helmet
>> use on others would be an odious thing imo even if helmets were
>> clearly beneficial (people have plenty to worry about themselves
>> without getting up in other peoples' bike business).

Quoted message said:

> Agreed. So why are many of the same people who are anti-lid also
> anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on school papers
> and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?

ANYONE?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you are talking about
somebody specifically (Frank?), address them. I like transfats and
can't get enough of the tug-of-war. Sometimes I watch SUV Tug-of-War
while snacking on a bowl of pure lard.

I'm talking about so-called liberals trying to outlaw things that are bad
(!) or harsh (!). Can't mark a student's paper in (gasp) RED INK because
it's too jarring. Can't have a tug-of-war contest because some will (gasp)
LOSE. (Not to mention the name, of course. Better call it a pulling
contest? Oh, but /contest/ is too competitive.) Light bulbs, big motors,
red meat, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile, Al Gore and his ilk fly their private jets to huge,
emission-emitting events all over the world while preaching mass transit and
green energy. Pure hypocrisy.

Quoted message said:

What I have seen are plenty of self-described free-thinkers, even
'libertarians,' who feel the need to judge out loud and pontificate to
unhelmeted riders. They take it upon themselves to enforce the
unwritten uniform code of the Real Cyclist, on dirt and road. Here we
are, resting by the trail, and along come some other bikers. Lo and
behold, <<doubletake>> this guy's not wearing a helmet! What a perfect
opportunity to show how superior, clear-headed, and in-control I am
with a few sharp comments .... These people don't give a flying f*@#
about the safety of others. Their helmet preaching is just part of a
larger personality issue. The 'sport of cycling' is heavily burdened
with these types. If not helmets, something else.

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank, Flailor, JFT,
can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against lids, they badger and
belittle those who choose to wear them.

I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything like you
describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down Noble Canyon (a
VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's nuts, but I certainly
would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal, you see).

Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster leans well
left politically, although not every left winger is anti-lid by any means.
(I know several die-hard liberals who wouldn't be caught dead riding without
their helmets.)

It's a tad mysterious.

BS

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

Quoted message said:

> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense; ...<snip> {AND B???}

Since you delete not only the context of what I write but also much of its
content, pffft.

{SNIP}

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

Quoted message said:

> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;

Quoted message said:

Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense;

Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me with
the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need science.

No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will be harder
if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER or BUFFER, you
see.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and B) at least you didn't delete the semi-colon, indicating further
thought (and that the previous words were incomplete on their own).
In this case, the very next words were, "however, EVEN IF IT
DIDN'T"...

I was responding to the first clause, obviously.

The use of a semi-colon indicated that the first clause was dependent or
predicated on what followed. HTH (but doubt it)...

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Michael Warner wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:29:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> In my case, wearing a helmet is a balance between the slight
>>> possibility that it might protect me in the remote chance that I
>>> crash, and the certainty that the weight of the helmet will
>>> cause me neck and shoulder pain.
>>
>> Are you serious? I've never heard that one before.
>
> At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than
> the average AHZ will allow!

Noting that I rather heavily qualified this, I can conceive of
crashes in which a helmet might help me, even though I am rarely
riding within those parameters.

Now, there was an incident in which I do think my helmet did help
me. A bit over four years ago I was knocked off my bike by a group
of four "youths" and assaulted (Cedar Lake Trail near downtown
Minneapolis between I394 and I94, for those of you familiar with
the area; there was a string of about five such incidents that
summer). Broken tooth, nondisplaced nose fracture, bruising over
my kidneys and a smashed helmet from them punching at my head once
they had me down. I think that a helmet absorbs a punch pretty
well. So much for "Minnesota nice," though.

Well that sucks. Condolences.

Thanks. It did suck.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that a helmet could so readily absorb/deflect blows
from fists or feet, yet apparently not from pavement, branches, curb
edges, etc. Seems to me it either PROTECTS or it does not. My
experience (and yours, too) is that is /does/.

The force of a punch thrown by a teenager is a lot less than the force
of 210 pound me banging my head into a solid object at 20+ mph.
Therein lies the difference in protection. As I said I can conceive
of some types of impact where a helmet might offer protection. And I
can conceive of crashes where it would not.

Last time making this point: just because you're riding 20+ mph doesn't
mean your head's /impact/ with something would be 20+ mph. A full-on
collission is not the same as a bounce or glancing blow or deflection or
slide or what have you.

Bill "and screw those punks" S.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Try to guess which helmet sells for $175, which for $85, and which for
$24:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3784-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

$85

Quoted message said:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3693-RDS-ANGLE.jpg

$175

Quoted message said:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3688-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

$24

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:49:27 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

If you had to walk around with a weight vest adding
that much more weight to your body, you wouldn't notice it all all,
right?

Of course I'd notice it initially, but not for long, and it wouldn't cause
any muscular or nerve problems.

Walk around for a couple hours a day, and the not the other 22. See
if you notice it -- if it's uncomfortable. And if you had any sort of
physical problem, if if that problem would be more severe.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:52:51 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Really? While "pain" is perhaps a strong word, discomfort from weight
is a big part of not wearing a helmet.

It'd be interesting to conduct a blind trial to test whether most cyclists
really feel the extra weight, but I can't imagine how it could be done,
short of implanting weights inside the skull :-)

Of course most people can feel the weight, at least whe it's first put
on. It's a pound. Maybe after 15 minutes or more they would not be
reminded of it but you can put a pound anywhere on my body and I'll
notice it.

But here' sa serious question for you. If it's hard to notice that
one is wearing a helmet, why do so many people who are not being
pushed to wear a helmet choose not to wear a helmet. In places like
the Netherlands it can't be an issue of money. Are they just stupid?
Ignorant? What do you think?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Michael Warner said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:29:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> In my case, wearing a helmet is a balance between the slight
> possibility that it might protect me in the remote chance that I
> crash, and the certainty that the weight of the helmet will cause
> me neck and shoulder pain.

Are you serious? I've never heard that one before.

At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than
the average AHZ will allow!

Noting that I rather heavily qualified this, I can conceive of crashes
in which a helmet might help me, even though I am rarely riding within
those parameters.

I'm certain a helmet will tend to reduce abrasions and cuts on the
head. As do thick hats.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

email hidden said:

Once you determine the force of the impact, then, imagine hitting your
head with the same force and seeing what happens. I don't feel like
doing the experiment, but I believe that it takes quite some force to
crack the helmet in half. I wouldn't have liked to hit my head with
the same force.

It clearly takes far more force to crack you skull than to crack a
helmet. We all have seen many, many cracked and exploded helmets but
extremely few cracked or exploded heads.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************