The beginning of ANOTHER helmet thread

NY Rides' from Optimum Online said:

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?

Perhaps people are starting to realize that the helmets don't offer enough protection to justify the
high prices. Only the fashionistas seem to care.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace I'm definitely not in Omaha!
3:25:46 PM 21 July 2003

On 7/21/03 1:26 PM, in article [email hidden], "Kevan Smith"

// said:

NY Rides' from Optimum Online said:

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?

Perhaps people are starting to realize that the helmets don't offer enough protection to justify
the high prices. Only the fashionistas seem to care.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace I'm definitely not in Omaha!
3:25:46 PM 21 July 2003

I don't know about that. I have had a couple of accidents where my helmet keep my head from being
split open. One accident cracked the helmet, I was doing about 20 mph at the time. About 90% of the
riders I see here in San Diego are wearing helmets.
------------
Thou shalt use thine scraps to make quilts for charity, so that those less fortunate may know they
joy of sleeping beneath a quilt.

Carl Ebert <[email hidden]> wrote:
: I don't know about that. I have had a couple of accidents where my helmet keep my head from being
: split open. One accident cracked the helmet, I was doing about 20 mph at the time. About 90% of
: the riders I see here in San Diego are wearing helmets.

i cracked mine when i knocked it off the fridge. in my one accident i landed on my ass.

about 33% in minneapolis/saint paul i'd say. if you counted only the lycra clad roadies it'd
probably be double that.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

Carl Ebert from Cox Communications said:

I don't know about that. I have had a couple of accidents where my helmet keep my head from being
split open. One accident cracked the helmet, I was doing about 20 mph at the time.

You don't know as fact that it kept your head from being split open. The most you can know is that
it saved you from some abrasion, and even that is iffy. Had you not been wearing a helmet, you might
not have even hit your head.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace I left my WALLET in the BATHROOM!!
4:49:47 PM 21 July 2003

"NY Rides" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Has anybody noticed that fewer people than ever seem to be riding with helmets this year?

TROLL

In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"

Quoted message said:

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?

Tom Gibb <[email hidden]

(TBGibb) from AOL url='http://www.aol.com/'http://www.aol.com/url said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"

Quoted message said:

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.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace Spreading peanut butter reminds me of opera!!
I wonder why?
10:24:50 PM 21 July 2003

Kevan Smith said:

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.

That's because they're hot and have weight. I personally don't care about the weight, but when I'm
on a long, hot (trail) climb, I stow my helmet somewhere on the bike.

LANCE has asserted firmly that he always wears his helmet on a training ride.

And no, I have not noticed more people riding sans helmet. In fact, it's notable to not see them.
Most of the riders without helmets I see are poor and ignorant types riding chain-store bikes, and
usually breaking one or more rules of the road.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:40:19 -0600, Raptor <[email hidden]> from XMission

url='http://www.xmission.com/'http://www.xmission.com//url said:

Most of the riders without helmets I see are poor and ignorant types riding chain-store bikes, and
usually breaking one or more rules of the road.

Oh, I see. The better folk wear helmets. AS far as rule breaking goes, I see foam-chapeaued riders
break tons of rules on expensive bikes. Blowing through stop signs is one that comes to mind
immediately.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace A KAISER ROLL?! What good is a Kaiser Roll
without a little COLE SLAW on the SIDE?
4:14:53 AM 22 July 2003

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

(TBGibb) from AOL url='http://www.aol.com/'http://www.aol.com/url said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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.

--
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.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via Supernews,

url='http://www.supernews.com/'http://www.supernews.com/url said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

(TBGibb) from AOL url='http://www.aol.com/'http://www.aol.com/url said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
<[email hidden]> 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?

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace I demand IMPUNITY!
11:54:59 AM 22 July 2003

In message <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via

Supernews said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT, [email hidden] (TBGibb) from AOL aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
><[email hidden]> 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.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy from said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via

Supernews said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith <[email hidden]/\/\>
says...
> On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT, [email hidden] (TBGibb) from AOL aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>
> >In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
> ><[email hidden]> 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?

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace We had to wait FOUR BILLION years but we
finally got JERRY LEWIS, MTV and a large selection of creme-filled snack cakes!
12:45:06 PM 22 July 2003

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy from said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via
Supernews, supernews.comsupernews.comOpen ↗ wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
><[email hidden]/\/\> says...
>> On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT, [email hidden] (TBGibb) from AOL aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
>> ><[email hidden]> 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.

--
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.

Kevan Smith said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:40:19 -0600, Raptor <[email hidden]> from XMission

url='http://www.xmission.com/'http://www.xmission.com//url said:

Most of the riders without helmets I see are poor and ignorant types riding chain-store bikes, and
usually breaking one or more rules of the road.

Oh, I see. The better folk wear helmets.

Well done! I'm glad you got it.

Though I do see obviously serious cyclists riding without helmets, the vast majority riding topless
are immigrants apparently on their way to work (fully clothed), tattooed teenagers in tank tops on a
single-speed hi-rise kid's bike, po' white folks smoking while riding a beat-up Huffy. And yes,
riding like they either don't know or care about safety and courtesy.

AS far as rule breaking goes, I see

Quoted message said:

foam-chapeaued riders break tons of rules on expensive bikes. Blowing through stop signs is one
that comes to mind immediately.

But they've got helmets on, which was the question at hand.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:14:46 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via Supernews,

url='http://www.supernews.com/'http://www.supernews.com/url said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy from said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/.invalid> writes
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via
>Supernews, supernews.comsupernews.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>
>>In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
>><[email hidden]/\/\> says...
>>> On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT, [email hidden] (TBGibb) from AOL aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
>>> ><[email hidden]> 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. 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.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace Jesus is my POSTMASTER GENERAL ...
1:38:07 PM 22 July 2003

Kevan Smith said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:14:46 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via

Supernews said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:29:10 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> from wrote:

>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. 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.

My rationale for removing my helmet on long, slow climbs is simply that at the slower speed,
crashes happen more slowly, I can see them coming better, and therefore better prepare to protect
my head from impact. If I kill myself in a bike wreck at 6 mph, I don't deserve to have my genes
remain in the pool.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:14:46 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via

Supernews said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith <[email hidden]/\/\>
says...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:29:10 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> from wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
><[email hidden]/.invalid> writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:22:26 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via
>>Supernews, supernews.comsupernews.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
>>><[email hidden]/\/\> says...
>>>> On 22 Jul 2003 03:14:11 GMT, [email hidden] (TBGibb) from AOL aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <[email hidden]>, "NY Rides"
>>>> ><[email hidden]> 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:46:31 -0600, Raptor <[email hidden]> from XMission

url='http://www.xmission.com/'http://www.xmission.com//url said:

Kevan Smith said:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:14:46 -0400, archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> from Posted via

Supernews said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith <[email hidden]/\/\>
says...

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:29:10 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> from wrote:
>
>>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. 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.

My rationale for removing my helmet on long, slow climbs is simply that at the slower speed,
crashes happen more slowly, I can see them coming better, and therefore better prepare to protect
my head from impact. If I kill myself in a bike wreck at 6 mph, I don't deserve to have my genes
remain in the pool.

That's not a rationale so much as a rationalization -- a self-satisfying but incorrect reason for
one's behavior.
--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace Yow! I want my nose in lights!
3:04:08 PM 22 July 2003