A Helmet Story

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing will.

Fairly well covered on uk.rec.cycling, where it has been variously
pointed out that:

the tyre track goes across the back of the helmet where it extends well
beyond the head, so it might have missed completely without the helmet,
or just pushed a bare head out of the way, but in any case the head
would have taken much less pressure than the rear of the helmet did;

the press have documented people who've had their bare heads run over by
trucks and suffered nothing worse than headaches, including children
with weaker skulls than adults;

similar accidents have happened (and continue to happen) to pedestrians,
yet nobody thinks to wear helmets as a pedestrian;

similarly serious accidents have happened (and continue to happen) to
motor vehicle occupants, yet nobody outside of racing thinks to wear
helmets in motor vehicles (including police and ambulance crews
operating outside of standard traffic law);

had the rider concentrated a little more on primary safety then he may
well not have been run over in the first place.

So it's not actually a very convincing reason to wear a helmet. And
note that I'm not a "helmet hater", I'll wear mine where it seems
apposite (for likely falls at low speed when no other vehicle is
involved, for instance technical balancey MTB stuff) and did wear one on
the road for every trip over more than a decade before I read the
research and found out (a) the actual risks and (b) the actual
effectiveness.

Two salient points remain unanswered by folk thinking helmets are a
Great Idea on a [utility] bike:

1) cycling is not significantly riskier or productive of head injuries
than other everyday transport modalities such as walking and driving;

2) increased helmet wearing has never shown any positive effect on
serious head injury rates of cycling populations.

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/

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing will.

Well, yes, it's only reasonable....

.....-except for the fact that none of the bikes I ride anymore will flip
over forward from using the front brake too hard.
~

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

Quoted message said:

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing
will.

Well, yes, it's only reasonable....

....-except for the fact that none of the bikes I ride anymore will flip
over forward from using the front brake too hard.
~

So you feel no need to ware a helmet?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing
will.

Well, yes, it's only reasonable....

....-except for the fact that none of the bikes I ride anymore will flip
over forward from using the front brake too hard.
~

So you feel no need to ware a helmet?

Let's make that "wear" a helmet.

Mitt Crane said:

So you feel no need to wear a helmet?

Can't speak for him, but...

I wore a helmet for every journey I made by bike all through the
90s. I thought it was the obvious sensible thing to do. Being
challenged to assess my decision in light of the literature
available, I went into the medical research library a few minutes
from my desk specifically to prove I had been being sensible, and
that people doubting their efficacy were dangerous idiots.

I came out with my tail between my legs having changed my mind. I
had been wrong, the "dangerous idiots" had been right, and were
neither dangerous or idiotic as it turned out. The risks are not
great enough compared to other everyday things undertaken without a
helmet to justifty wearing one, and their performance when push
/does/ come to shove has proven over many years to be negligible in
serious accidents.

But I carried on wearing a helmet for quite some time, because to
start with I felt naked without one. I would prefer not to cycle
rather than to cycle without a helmet, so it was a bit of a wrench
but head eventually overcame heart. And just like when I was
growing up (when they didn't exist), I now ride around without one.
Of course, in those days (70s) there were more accidents on the
roads than now and e.g. bike brakes and other safety features
weren't nearly as good then as they are now, but nobody seemed to
think cycling was so dangerous you shouldn't do it, and what the
world needed was a helmet for cyclists. Aside from the road
accident rate gowing /down/ considerably since then, what's changed
that we need them now?

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/

Mitt Crane said:

Quoted message said:

So you feel no need to ware a helmet?

Let's make that "wear" a helmet.

No, not really. Not for crash protection anyway.

The problem with upright bicycles is that in crash situations there's a
tendency for the rider to be thrown onto their head. If you use the
front brakes too hard, if you strike an object or even if you get some
warning of a bad situation and attempt to "dismount" the bicycle at speed.

Recumbents tend not to display this problem. It's true that some (SWB's)
can be flipped forward under hard braking, but that's not a type I ride
much. None of the bikes I have can be flipped forwards by braking too hard.

I contend that what's safer than "going over the handlebars of an
upright bike with a helmet on" is "not going over the bars at all".
Helmets don't decrease bicycling head injuries because it's not lack of
helmets that *causes* those injuries--it's upright bicycles that flip
over forwards too easily.

Sometimes I wear a helmet for sun protection, and if I could find a
decently-priced helmet-mounted light I'd likely use it for that too. But
nowadays I tend not to wear a helmet at all.

I do however always use a head-mounted rear-view mirror, something which
I believe is far more important to bicyclists' safety in traffic than a
helmet is (-and yet so many people I see are wearing a helmet, but have
no rear-view mirror...). The rear-view mirror has saved me from /lots/
of bad situations; as far as I know, the helmet has saved me from *none*.
~

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

Quoted message said:

Mitt Crane said:

Quoted message said:

So you feel no need to ware a helmet?

Let's make that "wear" a helmet.

No, not really. Not for crash protection anyway.

The problem with upright bicycles is that in crash situations there's a
tendency for the rider to be thrown onto their head. If you use the front
brakes too hard, if you strike an object or even if you get some warning
of a bad situation and attempt to "dismount" the bicycle at speed.

Recumbents tend not to display this problem. It's true that some (SWB's)
can be flipped forward under hard braking, but that's not a type I ride
much. None of the bikes I have can be flipped forwards by braking too
hard.

I contend that what's safer than "going over the handlebars of an upright
bike with a helmet on" is "not going over the bars at all". Helmets don't
decrease bicycling head injuries because it's not lack of helmets that
*causes* those injuries--it's upright bicycles that flip over forwards too
easily.

Sometimes I wear a helmet for sun protection, and if I could find a
decently-priced helmet-mounted light I'd likely use it for that too. But
nowadays I tend not to wear a helmet at all.

I do however always use a head-mounted rear-view mirror, something which I
believe is far more important to bicyclists' safety in traffic than a
helmet is (-and yet so many people I see are wearing a helmet, but have no
rear-view mirror...). The rear-view mirror has saved me from /lots/ of bad
situations; as far as I know, the helmet has saved me from *none*.
~

I take it you are claiming the only crash protection provided by a helmet is
when you go over the handle bars on an upright bike. And since you now ride
a recumbent bike upon which you believe it is not possible to go over its
handlebars a helmet would offer you *none* of the protection it was
designed to provide.

Mitt Crane said:

I take it you are claiming the only crash protection provided by a helmet is
when you go over the handle bars on an upright bike. And since you now ride
a recumbent bike upon which you believe it is not possible to go over its
handlebars a helmet would offer you *none* of the protection it was
designed to provide.

Yea, pretty much.
~

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

Quoted message said:

Mitt Crane said:

I take it you are claiming the only crash protection provided by a helmet
is when you go over the handle bars on an upright bike. And since you
now ride a recumbent bike upon which you believe it is not possible to go
over its handlebars a helmet would offer you *none* of the protection it
was designed to provide.

Yea, pretty much.
~

I wish you well, my recumbent friend.

DougC said:

Mitt Crane said:

I take it you are claiming the only crash protection provided by a
helmet is when you go over the handle bars on an upright bike. And
since you now ride a recumbent bike upon which you believe it is not
possible to go over its handlebars a helmet would offer you *none* of
the protection it was designed to provide.

Quoted message said:

Yea, pretty much.

I would agree there's more to it than just taking a flyer over the bars,
but you need to look at the protection a helmet is designed to provide
at the specification stage.

And that specification is remarkably low (and has been *lowered* over
time by the manufacturers creating newer, lower specifications which are
easier to manufacture to).

That specification is for low speed accidents with no other vehicle
involved, pretty much the same as a fall to the ground while walking.
Don't believe that? Look it up for yourself...

That will fend off nasty grazes and bumps. In impacts beyond the
specification they are likely to fail catastrophically with little
actual benefit to the wearer, so they are /highly/ unlikely to save your
life, and you can see that by looking at population serious head injury
rates which don't undergo any improvement when helmet wearing rises.
Even doubling helmet wearing practically overnight with a law doesn't
make a clear blip on serious head injury rates where such sudden wearing
increases have happened. In the UK girls wear helmets at twice the rate
of boys. Their serious head injury rates? the same. These *facts* do
not sit well with bike helmets being life-savers. They're headache
savers, and your chances of the headache in the first place are not
great. Most accidents, I'd think almost certainly including nasty but
non-lethal bangs to the head, happen in the home (kitchen cupboards are
the ones that get me and my wife most often, especially the one above
the dishwasher), and aside from very isolated cases with problems
injuring themselves from disability/illness, nobody feels the need for
head protection around the home. So why move the goalposts on your bike?

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/

Mitt Crane came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago
in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:

Quoted message said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing will.

only one skid lid I'll wear, and that's a full-face in jet black, fully
cushioned BSI-certified road legal motorcycle helmet. These styrofoam
helmets cause more damage than they prevent IMO - I've seen the results of
these things absorbing impact energy in low-speed shunts, swipes and even
hed on collisions. Not pretty. The styrofoam basically disintegrates and
the shells splinter and impale eyes; the harder shells have embedded
themselves in skulls and due to their nature, have proven very difficult to
remove without secondary damage.
--
If you can read this -
The [censored] fell off!

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

Quoted message said:

Mitt Crane came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment
ago
in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:

Quoted message said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing
will.

only one skid lid I'll wear, and that's a full-face in jet black, fully
cushioned BSI-certified road legal motorcycle helmet. These styrofoam
helmets cause more damage than they prevent IMO - I've seen the results of
these things absorbing impact energy in low-speed shunts, swipes and even
hed on collisions. Not pretty. The styrofoam basically disintegrates and
the shells splinter and impale eyes; the harder shells have embedded
themselves in skulls and due to their nature, have proven very difficult
to
remove without secondary damage.
--
If you can read this -
The [censored] fell off!

So basically you pulled this bit out of your ass. If there is a citation for
it, please post it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

My sister sent me these images. I would like to share them with you.

www.sometimesyouneedaparachuteinstead.blogspot.com

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing will.

Perhaps more instructive would be champion pro cyclist Chris Boardman's
well researched article in the June issue of Pro Cycling explaining why
he often doesn't bother with one. He says how his reasoning is based in
part on his work for the UK's National Cycling Strategy, set up to
advise the government on all matters cycling, as well as years in
competitions where he was one of the first riders to wear a helmet
before they were made compulsory.

Hopefully he can be taken as a trustworthy source without any need to
invent things, though I note he seems to have found the same sources
credible as folk like me.

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/

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Mon, 21 May 2007 08:44:47 +0100

Peter Clinch said:

well researched article in the June issue of Pro Cycling explaining why
he often doesn't bother with one. He says how his reasoning is based in
part on his work for the UK's National Cycling Strategy, set up to
advise the government on all matters cycling, as well as years in
competitions where he was one of the first riders to wear a helmet
before they were made compulsory.

Wish I could read it. I googled for "Chris Boardman helmet" and found
a deal of pro helmet things about his crash, and him saying how
wonderful it was. Be good to see the things that changed his mind
given he has crashed.

Be interesting to see some CGI crash movies involving recumbents, I'm
sure there's software out there that could generate basic stick figure
crash movies using the force vectors. My gut feeling is that unlike
an upright a 'bent rider will hit legs first, and if the head hits
anything it will be a very light hit on the ground with shoulders and body
decelerating the head heaps. So a helmet will prevent a sore head and
some gravel rash on the scalp (not a good look!) but not much more.

Zebee

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Mon, 21 May 2007 08:44:47 +0100

Peter Clinch said:

Mitt Crane said:

www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934

If this story doesn't convince the helmet haters to wear one nothing will.

Perhaps more instructive would be champion pro cyclist Chris Boardman's
well researched article in the June issue of Pro Cycling explaining why

While googling I found this on the pro cycling archive:
http://www.procycling.com/news_archive.aspx?ID=1320

"The German was motorpacing behind a T-Mobile team car, driven by
directeur sportif Mario Kummer, late on Friday morning when a truck up
ahead apparently braked suddenly on a roundabout, causing Kummer to
brake and Ullrich to crash through the rear window. According to
T-Mobile team doctor Lothar Heinrich, “it's not that bad, and less
serious than it looked at the time”.

“He's got cuts on the left side of his neck,” Heinrich continued. “We
disinfected his wounds, and there was no need for him to go to the
hospital, but his neck might be a bit stiff tomorrow.”

Ullrich was apparently not wearing a helmet, but it is thought that
there should not be any long-term ill-effects, and that he should be
competitive in Saturday's 19km opening time trial."

Boggled me a bit, I'd have thought headbutting a window was a very
good test of a lid, but he wasn't wearing one! Must have
shoulderbutted not headbutted I guess.

Zebee

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

Quoted message said:

My sister sent me these images. I would like to share them with you.

www.sometimesyouneedaparachuteinstead.blogspot.com

And sometimes all you need is Photoshop installed on your computer.

Zeke said:

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

Quoted message said:

My sister sent me these images. I would like to share them with you.

www.sometimesyouneedaparachuteinstead.blogspot.com

And sometimes all you need is Photoshop installed on your computer.

The pictures are real; it's Hans Rey and Steve Pete doing stuff for a
DVD, apparently.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=267233
~

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

Quoted message said:

Zeke said:

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

Quoted message said:

My sister sent me these images. I would like to share them with you.

www.sometimesyouneedaparachuteinstead.blogspot.com

And sometimes all you need is Photoshop installed on your computer.

The pictures are real; it's Hans Rey and Steve Pete doing stuff for a DVD,
apparently.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=267233
~

As you say apparently real. The almost two minute video only showed 2
seconds or so of the cliff ride with most of the remaining time showing them
drinking beer in an Irish pub and goofing around.

I'm wondering why Hans & Steve were wearing helmets. Wouldn't it be more
enjoyable to fall to your death having the wind in your hair?

Z