In article <
[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
<
[email protected]/\/\> says...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:14:46 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via
> Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <
[email protected]>, Kevan Smith <
[email protected]/\/\>
> >says...
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:29:10 +0100, Michael MacClancy <
[email protected]> from wrote:
> >>
> >> >In message <
[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
> >> ><
[email protected]/.invalid> writes
> >> >>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via
> >> >>Supernews,
http://www.supernews.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <
[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
> >> >>><
[email protected]/\/\> says...
> >> >>>> On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT,
[email protected] (TBGibb) from AOL
http://www.aol.com wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >In article <
[email protected]>, "NY Rides"
> >> >>>> ><
[email protected]> writes:
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >>Has anybody noticed that fewer people than ever seem to be riding with helmets this
> >> >>>> >>year?
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >>Have our heads gotten harder, have we all gotten stupider, or is it that, with all
> >> >>>> >>that's going on in the world, we just don't care as much anymore?
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >Have you checked out the TDF peloton lately?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I saw today's stage winner cross the line sans helmet. In fact, most of those behind him
> >> >>>> had their helmets off, too. As soon as they could, they ditched them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yes, they're allowed to ditch them at the start of the last climb when there's an uphill
> >> >>>finish.
> >> >>
> >> >>They don't need the protection then or something?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >They probably consider that uphill they're going slowly and therefore that they're less likely
> >> >to hurt themselves in falls. Sounds sensible. You have to admit that there's a huge difference
> >> >between the speeds they ascend and descend at.
> >>
> >> OK. So you don't have to wear a helmet if you are going slow enough. Now, think I've seen them
> >> climbing at around 18 mph, so, is that the cutoff speed for helmet protection?
> >
> >I think that's the only way they could get the rule passed at all. A debilitating or fatal head
> >injury is certainly more likely at descending or flat-land speeds than it is at climbing speeds.
>
> OK, now you're just talking out of your butt. That is just your opinion, and you have no evidence
> to back it up.
It is not "just my opinion" that "A debilitating or fatal head injury is certainly more likely at
descending or flat-land speeds than it is at climbing speeds." As to whether or not a helmet will
help in those cases, yes it IS an opinion, and I do believe that it will REDUCE (not eliminate) the
severity of injury in some kinds of impacts.
> The fact is that foam hats in the U.S. have to pass a test of one thing: will it absorb a
> certain amount of energy in a weighted fall straight down from about six feet. As long as it can
> do that, and just about any head covering can, it's called protection. The rest is fashion and
> marketing hype.
And I never claimed otherwise.
....
--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".
Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.