Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet



B

Bestest Handsander

Guest
My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
instructed that I should die.

So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no
> brain damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries
> are sustained, I am instructed that I should die.


Uh... sounds like a personal problem.

> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Hmm. I think the wife needs a bit of reprogramming.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no
> brain damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries
> are sustained, I am instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Divorce her and take up Duplicate Bridge.

HTH, BS
 
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.
>
>So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Dear BH,

Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
any significant difference.

Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
in such countries are typically much lower than in the
United States:

See the graph on the right of this page:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
reckless riders in the Netherlands.

In any case, more husbands are probably murdered every year
by their wives in the U.S. [1] than are killed on bicycles
(about 700-800 husbands, wives, and singles). Consider
wearing a helmet if you criticize her.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[1] See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mf.pdf for an
example of how tricky statistics are. This often-cited study
of family murders was culled from only 8,000 killings in the
75 most murderous counties 1988--would that there had been
only 8,000 killings.

And would that the government had made the details plainer!
You'd think that it would be easier for bachelors to find
out before the wedding how bloodthirsty the brides are
likely to be, but this obvious question is obscured by
cultural prejudice and bureaucratese.
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Too late! Best thing you can do now is get elbow and knee pads.

dl
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> >that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> >permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> >instructed that I should die.
> >
> >So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> >agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

>
> Dear BH,
>
> Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
> cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
> any significant difference.
>
> Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
> popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
> in such countries are typically much lower than in the
> United States:
>
> See the graph on the right of this page:
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
> It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
> accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
> 38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
> reckless riders in the Netherlands.


I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
ensure adequate injury!

Joseph
 
I can make this decision very easy for you.

There are only 2 reasons NOT to wear a helmet.

A ) You don't have a brain.

B ) You have a spare head.

If you're not sure which choice would be better for you, you don't need
to wear one. :)

Lewis.

******
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


The US Weather service recommends helmets
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11765409
 
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.


Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
to your spinal injuries while your brain and mouth still function
fine.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Must be that time of year for this crappola....
 
Bestest Handsander wrote:
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


The only reason I wear a helmet when road riding is to keep the peace
at home. She thinks it'll save my life and I know it's a worthless
piece of foam, but I can't be arsed to have the arguement so I wear it.

Laters,

Marz
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> I can make this decision very easy for you.
>
> There are only 2 reasons NOT to wear a helmet.
>
> A ) You don't have a brain.
>
> B ) You have a spare head.
>
> If you're not sure which choice would be better for you, you don't
> need to wear one. :)


Well, that parrots the helmet industry's marketing claims very neatly.
Unfortunately, as Carl Fogel summarized, the evidence does not provide
convincing evidence that helmets actually help. It would have been
really nice if the protective effect was clear. But who knows if
eventually more data will provide better power of discrimination about
this.
 
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:22:33 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>>instructed that I should die.
>>
>>So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>>agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

>
>Dear BH,
>
>Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
>cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
>any significant difference.
>
>Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
>popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
>in such countries are typically much lower than in the
>United States:
>
>See the graph on the right of this page:
>
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
>It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
>accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
>38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
>reckless riders in the Netherlands.
>
>In any case, more husbands are probably murdered every year
>by their wives in the U.S. [1] than are killed on bicycles
>(about 700-800 husbands, wives, and singles). Consider
>wearing a helmet if you criticize her.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
>
>[1] See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mf.pdf for an
>example of how tricky statistics are. This often-cited study
>of family murders was culled from only 8,000 killings in the
>75 most murderous counties 1988--would that there had been
>only 8,000 killings.
>
>And would that the government had made the details plainer!
>You'd think that it would be easier for bachelors to find
>out before the wedding how bloodthirsty the brides are
>likely to be, but this obvious question is obscured by
>cultural prejudice and bureaucratese.


All of those crime statistics should come with strict warnings about their use
by untrained personnel. In the lingo of governmental crime reporting a "friend
or acquaintance" is a person you know by name (at least that's the standard used
by responding police officers nationwide). So if the crack dealer you've been
chasing off your storefront for weeks takes a pop at you the "friend or
acquaintance" box will be checked.

Family member for purposes of these statistics also includes baby-daddies just
released from prison following a domestic abuse conviction who slug down a quart
of beer after months of abstinence and are disappointed in not being welcomed
back with well, let's presume months of abstinence, these types end up on both
sides of the homicide equation. Being more successful than most stalkers, though
otherwise undistinguished, they are counted as family members for the
statistics.

Ron
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I can make this decision very easy for you.
> >
> > There are only 2 reasons NOT to wear a helmet.
> >
> > A ) You don't have a brain.
> >
> > B ) You have a spare head.
> >
> > If you're not sure which choice would be better for you, you don't
> > need to wear one. :)

>
> Well, that parrots the helmet industry's marketing claims very neatly.
> Unfortunately, as Carl Fogel summarized, the evidence does not provide
> convincing evidence that helmets actually help. It would have been
> really nice if the protective effect was clear. But who knows if
> eventually more data will provide better power of discrimination about
> this.


There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help. I think I'll wear one.

Joseph
 
"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no
> brain damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries
> are sustained, I am instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
>
>


I suppose it depends on what you are going to hit.

Head, helmet or not, vs. Auto;
Head will lose.

Head without helmet vs. curb;
Head will probably lose.

Head with helmet vs. curb;
Chances are better that you will not end up with a depressed skull
fracture.

Head without helmet vs. pavement;
Possible head abrasions or lacerations, concussion or skull fracture

Head with helmet vs. pavement;
Reduced chance of abrasions, lacerations, concussion or skull fracture.

I wear a helmet:
I hit some debris on a class 1 bike trail and took a header a year ago.
I ended up unconscious on the bike trail, covered with blood from a head
wound that took 11 stitches to close and had a minor concussion.
After a year my only remaining symptom is some mild positional vertigo
when I look straight up.

I do not think I would have fared so well had I not been wearing a
helmet.

In the end it is your choice.


Rich
 
Do not go to the Newsgroups for answers to this question, for they
will tell you both no and yes.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show
> so much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use
> helmets and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued
> that a helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone
> argue that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so.


Sadly, some on here DO say that. Can you say zealotry?

> So
> using a helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help. I think I'll
> wear one.


Me too.
 
"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain
> damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are
> sustained, I am instructed that I should die.
>
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?


Get her to decide
 
Marz wrote:
> Bestest Handsander wrote:
>> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
>> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no
>> brain damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries
>> are sustained, I am instructed that I should die.
>>
>> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

>
> The only reason I wear a helmet when road riding is to keep the peace
> at home. She thinks it'll save my life and I know it's a worthless
> piece of foam, but I can't be arsed to have the arguement so I wear
> it.


Styrofoam-whipped much? Be a man! Leave with it on so she sees you, then
ditch it. (Unless, of course, you really DO think wearing a helmet might
just be a smart thing to do?)

Practice this phrase: "Yes, dear."

BS
 
Werehatrack wrote:

> Do not go to the Newsgroups for answers to this question, for they
> will tell you both no and yes.


You may be right.