Stealth Cyclist s.

MartinM on Mon said:

yeah whatever (plonk)

Don't bother. I'll go back into lurking mode.
You guys don't think you're a bit rough on those who believe this is a
"discussion group", do you?

Richard said:

You haven't bothered to read any of the information collated in
www.cyclehelmets.org, have you?

I have read it all. I've seen the statistics.
Also, I've read statements like "Many falls result in arm and shoulder
impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted
head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit
something." [1]
If the difference in head size and the weight causes the head to "hit
something" when it otherwise wouldn't have hit something, it's wouldn't
have been a severe impact, anyway.

[1] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1014

And no, I wasn't trolling. I've tried to stick to Usenet Netiquette. I
tried to discuss. I tried to be polite. At least I used my full real
name, while others, who take exception, don't.
Something went wrong here, and I'm not too sure I caused it.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

Erick T. Barkhuis said:

Also, I've read statements like "Many falls result in arm and shoulder
impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted
head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit
something." [1]
If the difference in head size and the weight causes the head to "hit
something" when it otherwise wouldn't have hit something, it's wouldn't
have been a severe impact, anyway.

[1] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1014

Right. So why do you think a helmet is so useful, then, if it causes an
impact to the head that would otherwise have been "not a severe impact"
on the shoulder/arm?

R.

Erick T. Barkhuis said:

I have read it all. I've seen the statistics.
Also, I've read statements like "Many falls result in arm and shoulder
impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted
head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit
something." [1]
If the difference in head size and the weight causes the head to "hit
something" when it otherwise wouldn't have hit something, it's wouldn't
have been a severe impact, anyway.

Unless you are not just travelling normal to the ground but have a
strong lateral component to your motion. In which case 'just hitting the
ground' becomes 'grab the ground and add a severe rotational trauma'.

The major questions are:

1. Is there a significant problem that needs to be addressed?

2. Are current cycle helmets an appropriate way to address any claimed
problem?

I would suggest that an attitude that suggest that the risk of cycling
above a certain speed can only be made acceptable by using equipment not
rated even remotely close to absorbing such energy, is one that leads to
risk compensation.

Oh, and this weekend I rode many miles at speeds over 20mph whilst
bareheaded and it was a wonderful day.

...d

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:59:05 +0100, Erick T. Barkhuis
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would say a helmet does make a difference.

Not been around here long, have you?

Quoted message said:

I must admit that's true. I have been lurking, though.

Check back over the helmet threads, then.

Quoted message said:

In fact, I'm a regular at plenty of motorbike forums and newsgroups. It
struck me that in those communities, the consensus is opposite to what it
appears to be here. And that's why I keep reading here...it's interesting
to see both sides.

I don't know what the consensus might be on the motorcycling groups.
I do know that the KSI rate for motorcyclists rose relative to all
road users following the helmet law, and it's certainly hard to find
any evidence of efficacy in a chart of motorcyclist casualty figures
over time. Between 1979 and 1981 motorcyclist fatality rates per mile
fell by over 30%, but with no obvious cause of which I'm aware.

Quoted message said:

At forums and newsgroups about _serious_ motorbike riding (not the Harley
'loud pipes, T-shirts' type), it's always: 'Dress for the crash...not for
the ride'. Those who don't wear a helmet are not taken seriously.

Probably an effect of the dominant UK motorcycling culture, which is
led by the race-replica types. [censored]-up cyclists rarely go lidless
either, but there are far more cyclists who are just pottering about
doing what we do than there are wannabe Lance Armstrongs.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't see the difference between a bicyclist doing 25mph and
a motorbike rider at the same (or slightly higher) speed. A helmetless
head banged against a light pole is not going to survive.

And neither is a helmeted one. Bicycle helmets are not designed to
protect against that kind of impact, they are only thin, brittle
polystyrene foam.

The usual exercise here is to plot the head injury rate (HI as a % of
all cyclist injuries) in New Zealand for a period of five years either
side of their helmet law. See if you can tell from the shape of the
chart in which year helmet use went from 43% to around 95%.

Quoted message said:

Please, allow me to ask nicely and politely:
Could it be that even in this newsgroup plenty of bicyclists DO believe
that a helmet can make a lot of difference, but due to peer pressure,
don't express such opinion?

No idea. For my part I used to believe it until I came along here and
was pointed towards the evidence which the pro-helmet lobby don't even
tell you exists. By the time I realised that the most widely quoted
figure for helmet efficacy is (a) complete bollocks and (b)
misrepresented anyway I was piqued enough to find out much more. A
couple of years on I am one of the group behind
http://www.cyclehelmets.org, I have a database of around 700 helmet
research documents and abstracts, I correspond with MPs, campaigners,
academics and the like, and I've made friends with (among others) John
Franklin, probably Britain's foremost expert on cycling.

I can say with fair confidence that:
* cycling is not inherently or unusually dangerous
* cycling is not unusually productive of head injuries
* helmets have no significant effect on the types of injuries which
give concern
* helmets today are generally less good than they were ten or fifteen
years ago when most of the studies were done
* helmet campaigns divert attention away from the cause of the
problem, in as much as one exists

Maybe those who have an open mind are led to be, at the very least, a
great deal more sceptical of the pro-helmet orthodoxy. I think the
Liddites bring this on themselves by using deliberate lies and
exaggeration, but that's just me. There are several regulars here who
would describe themselves as pro helmet, anti compulsion, probably
most are not against helmets but don't think they do half of what they
are made out to do by the Liddites. You might like to check out the
manufacturer's disclaimer on a bicycle helmet some time.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:02:29 +0100, Erick T. Barkhuis
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Car drivers wear seat belts, even though every car driver believes he's a
better driver than average.

Jumping in with *both* feet now, are we?

Compulsory seat belt use had the following effects:

* no change in overall road casualties
* a large and sustained rise in the casualty rate for pedestrians,
cyclists and rear-seat passengers.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:04:16 +0000, Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Most of
them, again IIRC, are cars pulling out in front of the cyclist, or
turning across them; the latter case would suggest that front
reflectives are more useful.

Not as such, no - cars coming from the side don't light up the
reflectives and can't see any light reflected from cars which do light
them up, because the vision angle is too small.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:18:41 -0000, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

no-one is going to convince anyone on this ng to wear/not wear a helmet via
circumstantial evidence and comparisons with motorbikes etc.

True, but there is a strong track record of at the very least
encouraging people to be greatly more sceptical of the claims made by
those promoting helmets.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

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

the reason I have killfiled this thread is that it's all been done before,
no-one is going to convince anyone on this ng to wear/not wear a helmet via
circumstantial evidence and comparisons with motorbikes etc.

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:18:41 -0000, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

no-one is going to convince anyone on this ng to wear/not wear a

helmet via

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

circumstantial evidence and comparisons with motorbikes etc.

True, but there is a strong track record of at the very least
encouraging people to be greatly more sceptical of the claims made by
those promoting helmets.

and also those insisting that any form of cycling without one was
negligent; whilst descending a hill at 60kph yesterday I was under no
illusion that my hat would offer any useful protection in the event of
a prang. It might have helped a bit if I had fallen off due to going at
too low a speed to stay upright on the way back up though ;-)

| Erick T. Barkhuis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| | MartinM [on Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:40:04 -0000] wrote:
|
| | A lot of us do wear helmets, but we do not express opinions about the pros
| | and cons, because as I'm sure you know, it is a very contentious and
| | personal issue.
|
| It wouldn't be if proper statistics were available.

They are. Many places round the world have tried out bike helmet
compulsion.

| | I filter out the word h**m*t from the title of all messages
| | for this reason.
|
| Wow! Use of helmets has really been an issue at this newsgroup! 🙂
|
| If "bike helmets" are really that bad, AND you want protection in case
| you're not able to anticipate the unexpected, what should you do?
|
| ['You' in this sentence is not "you, MartinM", but rather "you,
| bicyclists"]
|
| Car drivers wear seat belts, even though every car driver believes he's a
| better driver than average. Motorbike riders wear helmets, because [censored]
| happens, even if you're the best bike rider in the World.

What you do is apply your intelligence and experience to avoiding
danger. You second-guess all the drivers around you at junctions, for
example. You cycle with the expectation that you'll never win against a
car so you make sure it never happens.

| I really don't believe that bicyclists could do without a helmet (a
| proper helmet!) at 20+ mph.

You're stuck in motorbike-mode perhaps.

FYI bike helmets are rated up to about 12.5mph, there are no "proper
helmets" (they're basically in the gloves-and-shin-pads category not the
safety-gear category). Wearing a motorbike helmet would cause your brain
to boil. There are full-face ones for downhill mountain-bike racers, but
they make detecting traffic difficult because they cover your ears and
restrict your field of vision, in any case they're not that much
stronger and won't "Save Your Life"(tm).

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

In message <[email hidden]>, elyob
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I find it funnier when someone puts on a reflective vest, then covers it
with a rucksack.

I put my rucksack (it's more like a courier bag) over my reflective
jacket. Luckily, it's a reflective bag.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

In message <[email hidden]>,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

My new office overlooks a main road in inner Glasgow.
Has anybody else noticed the strange habit many urban
commuter cyclists have of riding at night with no lights but wearing a
helmet. Do people really believe their helmet will make much
difference. And what strange logic makes somebody go to the trouble of
wearing a helmet but then not bother using lights?

Risk compensation in action.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

"Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:10:15 +0100, Erick T. Barkhuis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would say a helmet does make a difference.

Not been around here long, have you?

I must admit that's true. I have been lurking, though.
In fact, I'm a regular at plenty of motorbike forums and newsgroups. It
struck me that in those communities, the consensus is opposite to what it
appears to be here. And that's why I keep reading here...it's interesting
to see both sides.

Please, allow me to ask nicely and politely:
Could it be that even in this newsgroup plenty of bicyclists DO believe
that a helmet can make a lot of difference, but due to peer pressure,
don't express such opinion?

There are plenty, but when you ask them, none of them are aware of the facts
or have read the research. They all rely on the "well, it must do some
good, musn't it?" school of thought, and even if appraised of the facts,
studiously ignore them.

Quoted message said:

--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

In message <[email hidden]>, Erick T.
Barkhuis <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

If "bike helmets" are really that bad,

It's not so much they are bad, they just aren't very good at doing what
some people (including yourself it would seem) believe them to be useful
for.

Quoted message said:

I really don't believe that bicyclists could do without a helmet (a
proper helmet!) at 20+ mph.

Would you care to point to a cycle helmet, useful/wearable for normal
riding that gives significant protection against head injuries (as
opposed to cuts, scratches etc.) in a 20 mph impact
--
Chris French, Leeds

Erick T. Barkhuis said:

I really don't believe that bicyclists could do without a helmet (a
proper helmet!) at 20+ mph.

With a little judo/aikido training it's often quite easy to roll out of
a crash at 20+mph with no injuries. I've done it from a bike (more than
once) and from a motorbike. Protecting the head is, of course,
instinctive, but breakfall training enhances that instinct.

Obviously if you ride one of those funny upright bikes there's still a
danger of hitting your head on a car that SMIDSYs you. Good
observational skills, good bike handling skills and properly maintained
brakes will do far more to save you here than any cycle helmet.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:04:16 +0000, Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Most of
them, again IIRC, are cars pulling out in front of the cyclist, or
turning across them; the latter case would suggest that front
reflectives are more useful.

Not as such, no - cars coming from the side don't light up the
reflectives and can't see any light reflected from cars which do light
them up, because the vision angle is too small.

"cars turning across cyclists" = "cars coming from the opposite
direction and turning right", where the headlights would indeed be
reflected back from a retroreflective jacket :-)

I quite agree that it won't make much difference in the former case, of
cars pulling out [from side roads].

R (yes, the same one as posted the OP. I really must sort out my
identity crisis).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You haven't bothered to read any of the information collated in
www.cyclehelmets.org, have you?

I have read it all. I've seen the statistics.

Read this. It's really quite well written.

<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

The slides are here:
<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-slides.pdf>

I much prefer it to cyclehelmets.org, mainly because it's shorter. Gives a
general overview of the whole thing and mentions all the main points that
are done to death elsewhere, but in one fairly unbiased serving.

Mark.

On 14 Mar 2005 23:20:21 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Read this. It's really quite well written.

I'll tell Malcolm, he'll be pleased to hear it ;-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:16 GMT, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I find it funnier when someone puts on a reflective vest, then covers it
with a rucksack.

That would be me. I know it's not ideal but sometimes the rucksack is
unavoidable. It's better than not wearing the reflective vest - a lot
of which does still show below and around the rucksack.

Quoted message said:

My new office overlooks a main road in inner Glasgow.
Has anybody else noticed the strange habit many urban
commuter cyclists have of riding at night with no lights but wearing a
helmet. Do people really believe their helmet will make much
difference. And what strange logic makes somebody go to the trouble of
wearing a helmet but then not bother using lights?
Iain

Probably the fact that batteries need more regular replacing
than a helment. I recommend a dynamo.