education

davek said:

I'll probably regret starting yet another helmet thread, but here we go...

My wife's got some friends round at the moment and I've been patiently
explaining why on earth anyone would want to cycle 100km without being
under duress, doing it for charity, etc. (Why does anyone do anything
that they enjoy?)

Inevitably, one of them asked if I wear a helmet, I say yes, so she says
could I help convince her husband to wear one because he refuses to. So,
naturally, I explained that helmets are not really all that much cop
(only designed to protect you in low-speed impacts, no good if you get
run over by a cement mixer, etc).

Butbutbut... she says, she knows someone who had a nasty accident and A
Helmet Saved His Life. So I say, what are his grounds for saying that?

She's an intelligent enough person that I won her round in the end and
convinced her that she should stop nagging her husband. Did I do good?

Of course you did. The more people who realise the limitations of helmets
the better.

Quoted message said:

At the very least, I think her husband owes me a pint next time I see him.

Yes, harmonious marital relations are another good thing.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Quoted message said:

Did I do good?

Quoted message said:

her husband owes me a pint next time I see him.

Nice one - I think you already know the answer.

Tho are you sure you used a logical argument to stop a woman nagging?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:37:29 +0000 (UTC), davek <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Did I do good?

Of course. "We are not anti helmet, we are anti [censored]" - the new
rallying cry of the Cyclists' Liberation Front.

Quoted message said:

At the very least, I think her husband owes me a pint next time I see him.

I'll pay if he won't ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

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

Quoted message said:

I'll probably regret starting yet another helmet thread, but here we go...

My wife's got some friends round at the moment and I've been patiently
explaining why on earth anyone would want to cycle 100km without being
under duress, doing it for charity, etc. (Why does anyone do anything
that they enjoy?)

Inevitably, one of them asked if I wear a helmet, I say yes, so she says
could I help convince her husband to wear one because he refuses to. So,
naturally, I explained that helmets are not really all that much cop
(only designed to protect you in low-speed impacts, no good if you get
run over by a cement mixer, etc).

Butbutbut... she says, she knows someone who had a nasty accident and A
Helmet Saved His Life. So I say, what are his grounds for saying that?

She's an intelligent enough person that I won her round in the end and
convinced her that she should stop nagging her husband. Did I do good?
At the very least, I think her husband owes me a pint next time I see him.

d.

To support your arguments you could point her to sites sceptical of
"helmet-saved-my-life" claims like:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
and
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

The latter has a helmet FAQ.

In news:[email hidden],

davek said:

I'll probably regret starting yet another helmet thread, but here we
go...

My wife's got some friends round at the moment and I've been patiently
explaining why on earth anyone would want to cycle 100km without being
under duress, doing it for charity, etc. (Why does anyone do anything
that they enjoy?)

Inevitably, one of them asked if I wear a helmet, I say yes, so she
says could I help convince her husband to wear one because he refuses
to. So, naturally, I explained that helmets are not really all that
much cop (only designed to protect you in low-speed impacts, no good
if you get run over by a cement mixer, etc).

Butbutbut... she says, she knows someone who had a nasty accident and
A Helmet Saved His Life. So I say, what are his grounds for saying
that?

She's an intelligent enough person that I won her round in the end and
convinced her that she should stop nagging her husband. Did I do good?
At the very least, I think her husband owes me a pint next time I see
him.

d.

Can I give you my wife's phone number?
--

Martin Bulmer

I love to cycle without the lid, but it did save my head on one occasion....

I was cycling through Hyde Park on my road bike. The front wheel quick
release came undone (my fault of course). As I hopped over a speed bump, the
front wheel came out. Nasty. My downtube landed on the wheel, buckling it,
and I went right over the handle bars - landing on my head. The helmet was
trashed. Fortunately I'd just been to one of those IT training courses where
they give you 500 pages of useless guff so that saved my back. I'm sat there
on the road seeing stars, suddenly elated that I hit the deck without
injury. I couldn't stop laughing. The damage: trashed helmet; trashed front
wheel; slight concussion; 'told you so' from the girlfriend (and she was
right).

Many of the crashes, bumps and falls ARE at low speed. Many people never
cycle very fast. Many of the slow riders have bikes which aren't in good
enough condition to brake effectively. I say that you should encourage him
to wear a helmet.

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

Quoted message said:

I'll probably regret starting yet another helmet thread, but here we go...

My wife's got some friends round at the moment and I've been patiently
explaining why on earth anyone would want to cycle 100km without being
under duress, doing it for charity, etc. (Why does anyone do anything
that they enjoy?)

Inevitably, one of them asked if I wear a helmet, I say yes, so she says
could I help convince her husband to wear one because he refuses to. So,
naturally, I explained that helmets are not really all that much cop
(only designed to protect you in low-speed impacts, no good if you get
run over by a cement mixer, etc).

Butbutbut... she says, she knows someone who had a nasty accident and A
Helmet Saved His Life. So I say, what are his grounds for saying that?

She's an intelligent enough person that I won her round in the end and
convinced her that she should stop nagging her husband. Did I do good?
At the very least, I think her husband owes me a pint next time I see him.

d.

Quoted message said:

I love to cycle without the lid, but it did save my head on one
occasion.... slight concussion

Out of genuine interest, what do you think your injuries would have been
without the helmet?

Mark.

I landed squarely on top of my head at about 15-20kmph. I went over the
handlebars of a full sized road bike (therefore a fall of about 150cm). I
weigh about 70kg, add at least four kilos for the training materials. For
that force, I would expect severe concussion; possibly coma and a cracked
skull. If all of those did happen, then there would be further complications
or hemorrhaging etc. All of this is conjecture, so I did a search. This
article was interesting:
http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/accident_reconstruction/vol5-no3.htm

The helmet wouldn't have protected my neck. Fortunately, my neck wasn't
hurt.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I love to cycle without the lid, but it did save my head on one
occasion.... slight concussion

Out of genuine interest, what do you think your injuries would have been
without the helmet?

Mark.

Will H said:

I landed squarely on top of my head at about 15-20kmph. I went over the
handlebars of a full sized road bike (therefore a fall of about 150cm). I
weigh about 70kg, add at least four kilos for the training materials. For
that force, I would expect severe concussion; possibly coma and a cracked
skull. If all of those did happen, then there would be further complications
or hemorrhaging etc. All of this is conjecture, so I did a search. This
article was interesting:
http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/accident_reconstruction/vol5-no3.htm

Increased helmet wearing has not made any difference to the rate of
deaths and serious injuries where they've been made compulsory, thus
forcing a rise in wearing rates.

Do you think that a fractured skull is a serious injury? I do...

In the meantime, did your search include
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 ?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 18/8/04 11:52 am, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Clinch said:

Will H said:

I landed squarely on top of my head at about 15-20kmph. I went over the
handlebars of a full sized road bike (therefore a fall of about 150cm). I
weigh about 70kg, add at least four kilos for the training materials. For
that force, I would expect severe concussion; possibly coma and a cracked
skull. If all of those did happen, then there would be further complications
or hemorrhaging etc. All of this is conjecture, so I did a search. This
article was interesting:
http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/accident_reconstruction/vol5-no3.htm

Increased helmet wearing has not made any difference to the rate of
deaths and serious injuries where they've been made compulsory, thus
forcing a rise in wearing rates.

Do you think that a fractured skull is a serious injury? I do...

In the meantime, did your search include
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 ?

Given the description of the accident, it is entirely likely that it fell
inside the narrow parameters in which a helmet would help. It is possibly
the first plausible MHSML I have heard.

My own take on the stats is that they mask two things. Helmets working in a
certain range of circumstances and helmets harming in others. Unfortunately
they appear to harm more than they help.

...d

Will H said:

I landed squarely on top of my head at about 15-20kmph. I went over the
handlebars of a full sized road bike (therefore a fall of about 150cm). I
weigh about 70kg, add at least four kilos for the training materials. For
that force, I would expect severe concussion; possibly coma and a cracked
skull. If all of those did happen, then there would be further complications
or hemorrhaging etc. All of this is conjecture, so I did a search. This
article was interesting:
http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/accident_reconstruction/vol5-no3.htm

That article is indeed interesting. I wonder if Walters Forensic would
have published an article even if they concluded there was no evidence to
support their client's case? Also, they don't mention the result of the
case. The cyclist's legal team may have provided sufficient evidence to
prove that the defendant was wrong.

I do believe that helmets may be effective in preventing certain types of
injuries and that the 'low severity impact' case cited in the link may be
one of them. However, it's probable (and seems to be supported by
population studies) that they make other injuries more likely whilst
decreasing the number of people who cycle.

If they can't be shown to be of benefit for all injuries at the population
level then what's the point of them?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

interesting article. fair points made.

I don't want to engage in conjecture about risks and outcomes. However, I do
know that:
- everyone crashes
- you only get one brain

I was going to write about the types of crashes (frontal impact, low side
slide etc) but I'm not well enough informed to make a serious case. Clearly
there are limitations of the effectiveness of a helmet (if a vehicle hits a
cyclist at speed for example). The outcome of any impact involves a
combination of factors. Everyone cares about the risks and outcomes, so make
sensible judgements and ride sensibly. IMHO, a lid is a sensible precaution.

ps - a helmet is a gnat's thong on the Hangar Lane Gyratory system:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=518462&Y=182661&A=Y&Z=1

David Martin said:

Given the description of the accident, it is entirely likely that it fell
inside the narrow parameters in which a helmet would help. It is possibly
the first plausible MHSML I have heard.

OTOH the incident sounds not entirely dissimilar to a couple of geezers
in uuy's neck of the woods who went over their bars. One was okay, the
other one died. The dead one was wearing a lid, the other wasn't.
There are just too many variables to decide from a paragraph description.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Will H said:

interesting article. fair points made.

I don't want to engage in conjecture about risks and outcomes. However, I do
know that:
- everyone crashes
- you only get one brain

But the salient point remains: where helmet wearing rates have
increased, there has been /no/ detectable difference in KSIs before and
after. Brain damage is serious, so it comes under KSI figures.

That's population level data where the uncertainties of the exact setups
of accidents are effectively filtered out. So in any given accident it
appears that wearing a helmet or not will make no particular difference
to your one brain.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, a lid is a sensible precaution.

Well, that's what I thought and why I used to wear one any time I cycled
anywhere. But the more I look at studies of real data with a good
sample base the more it ISTM they're in /irrelevant/ precaution for all
but mitigating relatively minor injuries.

Furthermore, your logic can be applied to many other situations, such as
falling downstairs (people are killed doing it, everybody (pretty much)
uses stairs, lots of people trip on them from time to time). So it's
"obvious" that wearing a helmet for stairs would be a sensible
precaution. If not, why not? If your logic is consistent and
reasonable it should be easy to answer that, but I found I couldn't when
I asked myself the same question as a regular lid wearer. All I could
think of was I felt cycling was actually more dangerous than it really
is, a perception thing.

Giving up wearing one routinely was a psychological problem. I felt it
/must/ do some good. I think it was a trip to NL that really convinced
me to change. Thousands upon thousands of cyclists, hardly any wearing
lids, plenty doing 15-20 kph with all sorts of opportunities for going
over the bars of their full sized bikes. Yet there isn't a cranial
carnage problem in NL.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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

Quoted message said:

But the salient point remains: where helmet wearing rates have
increased, there has been /no/ detectable difference in KSIs before and
after. Brain damage is serious, so it comes under KSI figures.

I'm in no position to question these statistics.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, your logic can be applied to many other situations, such as
falling downstairs (people are killed doing it, everybody (pretty much)
uses stairs, lots of people trip on them from time to time). So it's
"obvious" that wearing a helmet for stairs would be a sensible
precaution. If not, why not? ..... All I could
think of was I felt cycling was actually more dangerous than it really
is, a perception thing.

I can't accept that. The casualty statistics for urban roads do not stand
comparison with staircases. The statistics concern totally different age
groups and activity profiles. Also, I've studied staircase layout. The
design is regulated to minimise falls (see link for Approved Document K
below). The regulation can't control the quality of carpet or incidence of
loose items on the treads, but these risks can be managed by the individual
users. On the road there are multiple users operating independently at
speed. The only overlap is that people get hurt. As for perception, if you
cycle round Shepherd's Bush at rush hour, you wouldn't believe that it was
'a perception thing'. What protects you is good kit, good vision and
visibility and an assertive attitude which gives clear messages to drivers.

It seems to me that we're comparing two different things. The first is a
statistical analysis across a population which gives some compelling
evidence. The second is a personal view which gives some compelling common
sense. I'm afraid that these two position are unlikely to converge. No
matter, I respect your position. I'd love to cycle lidless, but If I hurt
myself, the gf would tighten the cones until my bearings were crushed and
anyway - it ruins my hairdo

Approved Document K:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=280&l=3

wh - carpentry geek

On 18/8/04 2:52 pm, in article [email hidden],

Will H said:

As for perception, if you
cycle round Shepherd's Bush at rush hour, you wouldn't believe that it was
'a perception thing'. What protects you is good kit, good vision and
visibility and an assertive attitude which gives clear messages to drivers.

Just out of interest, which of these do you think is the most important and
which are perception (the two are not mutually exclusive).

Vision is perception
visibility is perception
clear messages to drivers is perception
good kit means you can avoid an accident, and possibly improve visibility.

Re C&U regs for stairs. How many stairs actually comply to these? I recently
had one of mine replaced and they wanted to make them compliant.
Unfortunately that was not feasible as it was not possible to fit them into
the appropriate space. Many older houses will be like that.

Oh, and despite the current address, I used to commute through Shepherds
Bush quite regularly by bike. No major problems. It is a question of see and
be seen, and potential collisions likely to be far outwith the design
parameters of a helmet. Given that cycling in heavy traffic like SB is a
strenuous activity and wearing helmets can reduce the ability to react to
stimuli, are you really safer wearing a helmet in heavy traffic instead of a
bright yellow bandana?

...d

Will H said:

I was cycling through Hyde Park on my road bike. The front wheel quick
release came undone (my fault of course). As I hopped over a speed
bump, the front wheel came out. Nasty. My downtube landed on the
wheel, buckling it, and I went right over the handle bars - landing
on my head. The helmet was trashed. Fortunately I'd just been to one
of those IT training courses where they give you 500 pages of useless
guff so that saved my back. I'm sat there on the road seeing stars,
suddenly elated that I hit the deck without injury. I couldn't stop
laughing. The damage: trashed helmet; trashed front wheel; slight
concussion; 'told you so' from the girlfriend (and she was right).

I had an almost identical crash in my youth; my total injuries were: mild
concussion (seeing stars), and a cut forehead, which required no stitches.

From this we can infer that your helmet saved you a cut head. Precisely as
expected.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Will H said:

I can't accept that. The casualty statistics for urban roads do not stand
comparison with staircases.

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that people fall down stairs and
suffer serious head injuries. If it's a reasonable precaution to wear a
cycle helmet because it /might/, as an outside chance, prevent a serious
head injury, then the same logic says it's a reasonable precaution to
wear a stair helmet. Lots of people use stairs safely, but same goes
for bikes.

Quoted message said:

The only overlap is that people get hurt.

Well, precisely! And if you don't want to get hurt and think a helmet
will help you for one, why except the other?

Quoted message said:

cycle round Shepherd's Bush at rush hour, you wouldn't believe that it was
'a perception thing'. What protects you is good kit, good vision and
visibility and an assertive attitude which gives clear messages to drivers.

Or, in short, not getting into an accident in the first place. None of
the above infers personal armour, just not getting knocked down. So
thinking you need personal armour is "a perception thing".

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that we're comparing two different things. The first is a
statistical analysis across a population which gives some compelling
evidence. The second is a personal view which gives some compelling common
sense.

As I've often said before, "common sense" is not common, nor is it even
necessarily sense. Knowing that that is so it strikes me as foolish to
trust it where the hard data says it's not reliable.

Quoted message said:

matter, I respect your position. I'd love to cycle lidless, but If I hurt
myself, the gf would tighten the cones until my bearings were crushed and
anyway - it ruins my hairdo

If you would love to cycle lidless, that's a good reason to cycle lidless.
"If you hurt yourself" contains first a conditional that you will, and
beyond that there is resonably convincing argument that the helmet made
any difference. The last time I went over the bars I was wearing a
helmet, but since I landed on my chin it made no difference whatsoever,
obviously so. So "if you hurt yourself" is a conditional on top of
another preventing you doing something you say you'd love to do, with
the conditionals unlikely according to hard data.
("It ruins my hairdo" suggests a lack of imagination finding another hat
that won't but which happens to be actually comfortable.)

Or, put another way, you're doing what I did for years, and that's
letting FUD adjust your priorities in the face of fairly clear evidence
it needn't.

I don't have any problems with folk wearing lids for good reasons. Good
reasons include "I just want to wear it, okay". But you've just said
you'd rather not, so don't let bad reasons get in the way of what you want.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

I don't have any problems with folk wearing lids for good reasons. Good
reasons include "I just want to wear it, okay".

I continue to wear one mostly out of habit. And if all it prevents is
cuts and bruises then at least I have fewer cuts and bruises that I
might otherwise. Although in fact I have never fallen off my bike in
such a way that the presence or absence of a helmet has made the
slightest jot of difference.

To follow up from my original posting, I now learn that the friend who I
"educated" about the efficacy of helmets believes that her husband put
me up to it! Never mind saving marital strife, I think I may have made
matters worse...

d.