About helmet

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

While I'm at work, my helmet hangs off the top tube on my bike. No PITA there.

In many of the neighborhoods in which I work, I'd just be a helmet donor if I did that.

My helmet has big enough ventilation holes that I can easily skewer it on my U lock. I don't leave
it behind often, but it's no pain if I do.

Losing white LED front lights though is getting to be a habit 8-(

Steve Palincsar said:

We disagree utterly. I care absolutely nothing for discussions of the public's perception of risk
vis a vis cycling, and it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, what _is_ relevant
is this: if you crash, would you be better off with, or without that helmet?

If you fall off your bike, you may be better off with a helmet. More likely, it will make no
difference at all - but you may be better off with a helmet.

If you get T-boned while driving your car, you may be better off with a helmet.

If you are hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, you may be better off with a helmet.

If you fall down your basement stairs at home, you may be better off with a helmet.

If your ladder topples while you clean your gutters, you may be better off with a helmet.

In fact, if you engage in any of the activities that cause 99% of the really terrible head injuries
in America, you may be better off with a helmet.

Yet NOBODY ever promotes helmets for motorists, for pedestrians, for stairs, for ladders...

But bicycling, causing less than 1% of those head injuries, somehow gets the solemn warnings and the
heartfelt testimonials.

I think it's weird.

Quoted message said:

So why wouldn't you want to? And why would you waste your time worrying about relative risk in
other activities in life that have no relationship to this sport?

Several reasons. One big one is that I believe in promoting cycling. I think it's good for society
as a whole, and good for us as individuals.

But one of the biggest factors dissuading people from cycling is fear - and to a large extent, it's
cyclists promoting the fears. In order to convince people to wear the proper hat, many cyclists are
eager to tell their horror stories, piously making it sound like a cyclist is always only moments
from possible death.

Of course, the horror stories always point out the narrator's wonderful wisdom in wearing that hat -
whether by mentioning the scrape in the shell, the dent in the foam, or just something like "But I
_could_ have easily hit my head!!!"

In fact, people have been riding as we ride for well over 100 years. They've been touring mountains,
riding time trials and races, riding in city traffic and all the rest. Yet there's never been a
plague of serious head injuries. Moreover, despite the "scrape" stories and "dent" stories, the
level of serious head injuries to cyclists hasn't changed since helmets became popular. (Check out
the big New York Times article of summer 2001 on this topic.)

The public is deliberately given the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous. But it's not.
The only way I know to demonstrate this is by comparison with things like motoring, or walking near
traffic, etc.

To you, that's irrelevant. To you, 0.19 head injury fatalities per million hours on bikes is far too
many, and means you must wear a helmet. To you, 0.17 HI fatalities per million hours in cars is just
fine, I suppose, and 0.34 HI fatalities per million hours of walking near traffic is beside the
point. Only cyclists need helmets.

I maintain that stance is anti-cycling.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet if you want to. You're also free to wear day-glo pink cycling
shorts! But for goodness sake, don't go portraying cycling as something uniquely dangerous, as if
it's a major source of serious head injury. That's just false.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Frank Krygowski said:

In fact, people have been riding as we ride for well over 100 years. They've been touring
mountains, riding time trials and races, riding in city traffic and all the rest. Yet there's
never been a plague of serious head injuries. Moreover, despite the "scrape" stories and "dent"
stories, the level of serious head injuries to cyclists hasn't changed since helmets became
popular. (Check out the big New York Times article of summer 2001 on this topic.)

The public is deliberately given the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous. But it's not.
The only way I know to demonstrate this is by comparison with things like motoring, or walking
near traffic, etc.

To you, that's irrelevant. To you, 0.19 head injury fatalities per million hours on bikes is far
too many, and means you must wear a helmet. To you, 0.17 HI fatalities per million hours in cars
is just fine, I suppose, and 0.34 HI fatalities per million hours of walking near traffic is
beside the point. Only cyclists need helmets.

I maintain that stance is anti-cycling.

People have been riding for well over 100 years, and people have been injured, too. I don't give a
hoot what the general public thinks; I've addressed no remarks to the general public. I'm speaking
here to cyclists. And I don't give a hoot about the risks or lack thereof in any other form of
activity, or how they compare with this one. It's entirely irrelevant: I'm cycling, not playing
football, hockey, rollerblading, sky diving, riding horseback, whatever. Let those who do those
activities worry about their risks.

You believe the odds will protect you from being injured; I know from personal experience (that you
will discount as "anecdotal"😉 that even though I have an excellent safety record I have still been
involved in a few accidents that were simply unavoidable. Based on this experience, I can only
deduce that regardless of your "playing the odds" theory, I've been hurt before, and there's a real
chance I'll be hurt again. I can live with minor injuries; but I really don't want anything
life-altering. I also don't want anything particularly disfiguring, painful, gross, or unpleasant.

So - looking at that picture, I think it makes sense to use that gear that's a part of the sport -
along with special shorts and jerseys we wear for comfort & ease of motion, and shoes that are light
but stiff and lock into pedals, and gloves that not only make long hours "on the bars" comfortable,
but also protect your palms from abrasion if you go down & often provide characteristic suntan
patterns that help identify us to each other - and helmets are clearly part of the sporting
equipment that goes along with the sport.

They're fashionable. They're attractive. They protect my head from very unpleasant sunburns, they
have a visor that helps me see in the bright sunlight, they're comfortable (and research has
demonstrated that they are cooler than a bare head), and oh by the way, as I've seen from my own
personal experience (regardless of what you think of it) that on more than one occasion the helmet's
been damaged in the course of absorbing impact that otherwise would have been taken by my head.
Thanks, but I'd rather have the helmet take it. You might prefer a blow to the head - fine, it's
your head, but frankly, I think that's a rather stupid position to be taking.

Oh, but you believe that because the odds are low, it isn't going to happen to you. And you call
that "pro-cycling". I think it's just plain silly.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet if you want to. You're also free to wear day-glo pink cycling
shorts! But for goodness sake, don't go portraying cycling as something uniquely dangerous, as if
it's a major source of serious head injury. That's just false.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

I'm not doing that. That's your particular hobby-horse, and you view everything through that lens.
My position is entirely different.

All I'm saying, if you reduce it to the bare minimum, is that of all the mishaps that are a common,
if relatively infrequent per mile or hour, part of our sport, most are little more than minor
irritants. There are a few that are especially nasty, either because of pain and inconvenience, or
outright threat to our ability to do ordinary activities in future.

Scraped palms are extremely painful due to the large number of nerve

avoid irritation from the handlebars also happen to protect those palms from abrasions in the event
of a spill. That's a worthwhile twofer.

Head injuries, while few in number, are potentially very serious - they can either end your life, or
can dramatically alter your capabilities - and stand out as being the nastiest potential thing that
you can easily do something about. And if you can do that at modest cost while actually getting
other benefits, that's just another twofer.

Sports have their characteristic uniforms; it's been that way back to Roman times. Cycling helmets
are part of ours.

Steve Palincsar said:

Oh, but you believe that because the odds are low, it isn't going to happen to you. And you call
that "pro-cycling". I think it's just plain silly.

One person is killed by an adder bite in the UK about every 30 years; the adder is the UK's only
poisonous snake.

Do you think it's "just plain silly" for the British to decline to wear heavy boots all the time?

When it comes to adder bites, I _do_ believe that because the odds are low, it's not going to happen
to me. What's silly about that?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

Steve Palincsar said:

Frank Krygowski said:

In fact, people have been riding as we ride for well over 100 years. They've been touring
mountains, riding time trials and races, riding in city traffic and all the rest. Yet there's
never been a plague of serious head injuries. Moreover, despite the "scrape" stories and "dent"
stories, the level of serious head injuries to cyclists hasn't changed since helmets became
popular. (Check out the big New York Times article of summer 2001 on this topic.)

The public is deliberately given the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous. But it's
not. The only way I know to demonstrate this is by comparison with things like motoring, or
walking near traffic, etc.

To you, that's irrelevant. To you, 0.19 head injury fatalities per million hours on bikes is far
too many, and means you must wear a helmet. To you, 0.17 HI fatalities per million hours in cars
is just fine, I suppose, and 0.34 HI fatalities per million hours of walking near traffic is
beside the point. Only cyclists need helmets.

I maintain that stance is anti-cycling.

People have been riding for well over 100 years, and people have been injured, too.

As I recall, people have been driving cars and getting injured for most of that same period, too.
Yet somehow, people resist protective clothing for that activity - which is by far the biggest
source of serious accidental injury, including head injury!

Quoted message said:

I don't give a hoot what the general public thinks; I've addressed no remarks to the general
public. I'm speaking here to cyclists. And I don't give a hoot about the risks or lack thereof in
any other form of activity, or how they compare with this one. It's entirely irrelevant: I'm
cycling, not playing football, hockey, rollerblading, sky diving, riding horseback, whatever. Let
those who do those activities worry about their risks.

You missed the point regarding that book on public perception of risk. The point was that the
_author_ (who considered himself an authority) had a distorted view of the risk of cycling. He
magnified cycling's risk while belittling much more serious risks.

And you, apparently, do the same. And like him, you sell your view to the public. You're part of
that problem.

Quoted message said:

... I've been hurt before, and there's a real chance I'll be hurt again. I can live with minor
injuries; but I really don't want anything life-altering. I also don't want anything particularly
disfiguring, painful, gross, or unpleasant.

But only while cycling?

Will you drive to a cycling event this year? Will you blithely assume that risk of head injury? Or
(since it's going to be with you anyway) will you drive wearing your helmet?

Quoted message said:

So - looking at that picture, I think it makes sense to use that gear that's a part of the sport -
along with special shorts and jerseys we wear for comfort & ease of motion, and shoes that are
light but stiff and lock into pedals, and gloves that not only make long hours "on the bars"
comfortable, but also protect your palms from abrasion if you go down & often provide
characteristic suntan patterns that help identify us to each other - and helmets are clearly part
of the sporting equipment that goes along with the sport.

That's funny! What would you say if you saw me cycling to work wearing dress slacks, dress shirt,
dress shoes that _don't_ lock onto the pedal, no gloves, and no hat?

Quoted message said:

They're fashionable. They're attractive. ... Sports have their characteristic uniforms; it's been
that way back to Roman times. Cycling helmets are part of ours.

I think we understand your real motivations.

Forget the numbers. Forget the data. Gotta have the look! God forbid we should ride in anything but
full mating plumage! ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

}=CroW={ said:

Are there really any major different between using stylish

cycling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helmets( Giro, Met etc.) and those hard plastic round helmets(California

pro

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

type).

You're going to sweat like a pig, wearing a [censored]-pot helmet.

There's also an impact issue. Bike helmets are designed to absorb impact destructively, in a big
one-off accident.

How do you know that? I don't believe it. Do you know how they test these things?

Quoted message said:

Most sporting helmets are designed for repeated small impacts. If you ever do really need that
helmet, it'll be for the big shunts.

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Steve Palincsar said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

America. It's by _far_ the biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even
on a per-hour basis, it's not a serious head injury risk.

It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one
on, or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell
yes, I want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.

Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap:

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

irrelevant.

Sorry, I think the level of danger is relevant.

As one extreme example: a certain author wrote a book on the public's perception of risk a few
years ago. In it, this author talked about the many risks he took, personally, including
backpacking in extreme terrain where, as he put it, one misstep to either side would mean
certain death.

He felt justified in assuming that risk, because he was so confident of his skill. However, he
felt very afraid for his neighbor, who rode a bike on a quiet suburban street without a helmet. To
me, his inconsistency was irrational.

It seems obvious to me that a rational decision on protective equipment would involve a rational
assessment of risk. If two activities have similar risks of a certain injury, that tends to
indicate similar levels of protection should be considered. Of course, level of risk is not the
_only_ criterion, but it's a fundamental one.

How do we assess level or risk? One good way is to compare to levels of risk of other activities.
With bike head injuries, that's not done. People commonly say they want protection against _any_
possibility of a head injury - but only when they're on a bike! They ignore 99+% of the "serious
head injury" problem, yet demonize bicycling's tiny contribution.

It's anti-cycling.>

It's irrational, hysterical thinking.

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Steve Palincsar said:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:48:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by
> _far_ the biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour
> basis, it's not a serious head injury risk.

It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one
on, or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell
yes, I want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.

Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap: all irrelevant.

Sorry, I think the level of danger is relevant.

I think I'm a better judge of the danger I was in during that crash than you. It was, after all,
my body hitting the deck, not yours. And the plain simple fact is, had I followed your advice
rather than mine on 1 April, I'd have incurred injuries that I thankfully avoided, and that I was
quite happy to have avoided.

Don't be so sure. You know, you could've gone alot farther to protect yourself from injuries,
including riding with crash pads, a neck brace, face protection ... or best yet, staying off
your bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As one extreme example: a certain author wrote a book on the public's perception of risk a few
years ago. In it, this author talked about the many risks he took, personally, including
backpacking in extreme terrain where, as he put it, one misstep to either side would mean
certain death.

We disagree utterly. I care absolutely nothing for discussions of the public's perception of risk
vis a vis cycling, and it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, what _is_ relevant
is this: if you crash, would you be better off with, or without that helmet?

That's what Frank's arguing. If you want to be rational, you ought to be wearing a helmet when you
drive or walk down the street as well.

Quoted message said:

You think statistical information about risk level will somehow keep you from having an accident;
in the case of the accident I had on 1 April, the statistical chance of that accident was very low
indeed. In over 30 years of cycling I've never had a front tire blow out at the bead the way this
one did; and I've never had a sudden and complete loss of front end stability the way I did that
day. I never once augered into the ground the way I did that day. I've had plenty of rear BAM!
blowouts, always from the tire jumping off the rim, and never suffered a total loss of control.

So the crash was as unlikely as hell. Did it happen? Trust me, it happened. Was I "ready" for it?
Only in the sense that since it was chilly I had on a pretty thick long-sleeve shirt under my
jersey and a pair of tights on my legs; and because I always wear them, I had a helmet and cycling
gloves on.

Quoted message said:

It seems obvious to me that a rational decision on protective equipment would involve a rational
assessment of risk. If two activities have similar risks of a certain injury, that tends to
indicate similar levels of protection should be considered. Of course, level of risk is not the
_only_ criterion, but it's a fundamental one.

How do we assess level or risk? One good way is to compare to levels of risk of other
activities. With bike head injuries, that's not done. People commonly say they want protection
against _any_ possibility of a head injury - but only when they're on a bike! They ignore 99+%
of the "serious head injury" problem, yet demonize bicycling's tiny contribution.

It's anti-cycling.

Nonsense. I'm not demonizing anything. Even though my personal safety record is quite good, much
better than average, I have no illusions of personal invulnerability, and I realize that if I'm
moving along at something like 15 mph -- nothing fast, just ordinary cruising -- and something
goes wrong, I'm probably going to hit the deck at a speed fast enough to hurt when I go down.

Mostly, the sort of things I've had happen, or have seen happen, are pretty common, painful and
inconvenient but not particularly serious: road rash, broken clavicle. Not really threatening, and
not much you can do to protect against them other than common sense stuff like don't ride without
a shirt, don't get in pace lines with people you don't know - ordinary road sense. About the only
really nasty thing that can easily turn something like this very serious is when you manage to
smack your head on the pavement, maybe drag it along for a bit. And this you can do something
about, at modest financial cost and no cost of inconvenience or discomfort.

So why wouldn't you want to? And why would you waste your time worrying about relative risk in
other activities in life that have no relationship to this sport?

OK, you don't think it's dangerous enough. Fine - it's your head, and good luck to you. But I'll
bet if it'd been you rather than me coming off 14th St Bridge on the bike path at about quarter to
5 on the 1st of April, you'd be sorry you made that choice. I made a different choice, and make no
mistake, I'm happy as can be.

If I got on an airplane, and it crashed, I'd be sorry, but I wouldn't start believing that flying is
dangerous.

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

Stop confusing us with facts, Frank! And don't ask us to use reason!! My brain has enough trouble
following the rules.

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Steve Palincsar said:

We disagree utterly. I care absolutely nothing for discussions of the public's perception of
risk vis a vis cycling, and it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, what _is_
relevant is this:

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you crash, would you be better off with, or without that helmet?

If you fall off your bike, you may be better off with a helmet. More likely, it will make no
difference at all - but you may be better off with a helmet.

If you get T-boned while driving your car, you may be better off with a helmet.

If you are hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, you may be better off with a helmet.

If you fall down your basement stairs at home, you may be better off with a helmet.

If your ladder topples while you clean your gutters, you may be better off with a helmet.

In fact, if you engage in any of the activities that cause 99% of the really terrible head
injuries in America, you may be better off with a helmet.

Yet NOBODY ever promotes helmets for motorists, for pedestrians, for stairs, for ladders...

But bicycling, causing less than 1% of those head injuries, somehow gets the solemn warnings and
the heartfelt testimonials.

I think it's weird.

Quoted message said:

So why wouldn't you want to? And why would you waste your time worrying about relative risk in
other activities in life that have no

relationship

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to this sport?

Several reasons. One big one is that I believe in promoting cycling. I think it's good for society
as a whole, and good for us as individuals.

But one of the biggest factors dissuading people from cycling is fear - and to a large extent,
it's cyclists promoting the fears. In order to convince people to wear the proper hat, many
cyclists are eager to tell their horror stories, piously making it sound like a cyclist is always
only moments from possible death.

Of course, the horror stories always point out the narrator's wonderful wisdom in wearing that hat
- whether by mentioning the scrape in the shell, the dent in the foam, or just something like "But
I _could_ have easily hit my head!!!"

In fact, people have been riding as we ride for well over 100 years. They've been touring
mountains, riding time trials and races, riding in city traffic and all the rest. Yet there's
never been a plague of serious head injuries. Moreover, despite the "scrape" stories and "dent"
stories, the level of serious head injuries to cyclists hasn't changed since helmets became
popular. (Check out the big New York Times article of summer 2001 on this topic.)

The public is deliberately given the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous. But it's not.
The only way I know to demonstrate this is by comparison with things like motoring, or walking
near traffic, etc.

To you, that's irrelevant. To you, 0.19 head injury fatalities per million hours on bikes is far
too many, and means you must wear a helmet. To you, 0.17 HI fatalities per million hours in cars
is just fine, I suppose, and 0.34 HI fatalities per million hours of walking near traffic is
beside the point. Only cyclists need helmets.

I maintain that stance is anti-cycling.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet if you want to. You're also free to wear day-glo pink cycling
shorts! But for goodness sake, don't go portraying cycling as something uniquely dangerous, as if
it's a major source of serious head injury. That's just false.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

In fact, people have been riding as we ride for well over 100 years. They've been touring
mountains, riding time trials and races, riding in city traffic and all the rest. Yet there's
never been a plague of serious head injuries. Moreover, despite the "scrape" stories and "dent"
stories, the level of serious head injuries to cyclists hasn't changed since helmets became
popular. (Check out the big New York Times article of summer 2001 on this topic.)

The public is deliberately given the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous. But it's
not. The only way I know to demonstrate this is by comparison with things like motoring, or
walking near traffic, etc.

To you, that's irrelevant. To you, 0.19 head injury fatalities per million hours on bikes is far
too many, and means you must wear a helmet. To you, 0.17 HI fatalities per million hours in cars
is just fine, I suppose, and 0.34 HI fatalities per million hours of walking near traffic is
beside the point. Only cyclists need helmets.

I maintain that stance is anti-cycling.

People have been riding for well over 100 years, and people have been injured, too. I don't give a
hoot what the general public thinks; I've addressed no remarks to the general public. I'm speaking
here to cyclists. And I don't give a hoot about the risks or lack thereof in any other form of
activity, or how they compare with this one. It's entirely irrelevant: I'm cycling, not playing
football, hockey, rollerblading, sky diving, riding horseback, whatever. Let those who do those
activities worry about their risks.

You believe the odds will protect you from being injured; I know from personal experience (that
you will discount as "anecdotal"😉 that even though I have an excellent safety record I have still
been involved in a few accidents that were simply unavoidable. Based on this experience, I can
only deduce that regardless of your "playing the odds" theory, I've been hurt before, and there's
a real chance I'll be hurt again. I can live with minor injuries; but I really don't want anything
life-altering. I also don't want anything particularly disfiguring, painful, gross, or unpleasant.

So - looking at that picture, I think it makes sense to use that gear that's a part of the sport -
along with special shorts and jerseys we wear for comfort & ease of motion, and shoes that are
light but stiff and lock into pedals, and gloves that not only make long hours "on the bars"
comfortable, but also protect your palms from abrasion if you go down & often provide
characteristic suntan patterns that help identify us to each other - and helmets are clearly part
of the sporting equipment that goes along with the sport.

They're fashionable. They're attractive. They protect my head from very unpleasant sunburns, they
have a visor that helps me see in the bright sunlight, they're comfortable (and research has
demonstrated that they are cooler than a bare head), and oh by the way, as I've seen from my own
personal experience (regardless of what you think of it) that on more than one occasion the
helmet's been damaged in the course of absorbing impact that otherwise would have been taken by my
head. Thanks, but I'd rather have the helmet take it. You might prefer a blow to the head - fine,
it's your head, but frankly, I think that's a rather stupid position to be taking.

Oh, but you believe that because the odds are low, it isn't going to happen to you. And you call
that "pro-cycling". I think it's just plain silly.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet if you want to. You're also free to wear day-glo pink cycling
shorts! But for goodness sake, don't go portraying cycling as something uniquely dangerous, as
if it's a major source of serious head injury. That's just false.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

I'm not doing that. That's your particular hobby-horse, and you view everything through that lens.
My position is entirely different.

All I'm saying, if you reduce it to the bare minimum, is that of all the mishaps that are a
common, if relatively infrequent per mile or hour, part of our sport, most are little more than
minor irritants. There are a few that are especially nasty, either because of pain and
inconvenience, or outright threat to our ability to do ordinary activities in future.

Scraped palms are extremely painful due to the large number of nerve

Quoted message said:

avoid irritation from the handlebars also happen to protect those palms from abrasions in the
event of a spill. That's a worthwhile twofer.

Head injuries, while few in number, are potentially very serious - they can either end your life,
or can dramatically alter your capabilities - and stand out as being the nastiest potential thing
that you can easily do something about. And if you can do that at modest cost while actually
getting other benefits, that's just another twofer.

So, Steve, do you wear a helmet in all those other activities Frank mentioned, or do you not believe
the statistics?

Quoted message said:

Sports have their characteristic uniforms; it's been that way back to Roman times. Cycling helmets
are part of ours.

Oh, so now it's about style?

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:48:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: They're fashionable. They're
attractive. They protect my head from very unpleasant sunburns, they have a visor that helps me
see in the bright sunlight, they're comfortable (and research has demonstrated that they are
cooler than a bare head), and oh by the way, as I've seen from my own

This sort of an aside, but where is the evidence that helmets are cooler than a bare head? I ride in
North Carolina in the summer; temps 95+ (35 C) and when I take the helmet off and ride my head feels
cooler. (I wear the helmet when I'm riding the technical single track and take it off too cool down
on the fire trail back to the car.) In addition a helmet must cut down on evaporative cooling as it
cuts wind flow. If there is evidence I'd like to see it, because it doesn't coincide with my
observations, so I'd like to know how they did the experiment.

Cheers, Chris.

Quoted message said:

personal experience (regardless of what you think of it) that on more than one occasion the
helmet's been damaged in the course of absorbing impact that otherwise would have been taken by my
head. Thanks, but I'd rather have the helmet take it. You might prefer a blow to the head - fine,
it's your head, but frankly, I think that's a rather stupid position to be taking.

Chris Breen said:

This sort of an aside, but where is the evidence that helmets are cooler than a bare head? I ride
in North Carolina in the summer; temps 95+ (35 C) and when I take the helmet off and ride my head
feels cooler.

You probably aren't riding very fast.

I ran some tests in 2000 to compare bare head to helmeted head heat transfer. At air speed of 11
mph, there was no difference between the two cases. Interestingly, evaporative cooling is higher
when wearing a helmet (but radiative and convective cooling is lower). The higher evaporative
cooling overcame the lower radiative/convective cooling at 11 mph.

I concluded that a helmet was at least as cool as a bare head when exceeding 10 mph, but it was
hotter than a bare head at lower speeds.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Breen said:

This sort of an aside, but where is the evidence that helmets are cooler than a bare head? I
ride in North Carolina in the summer; temps 95+ (35

C)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and when I take the helmet off and ride my head feels cooler.

You probably aren't riding very fast.

No, I wasn't riding very fast probably round 10-15 mph, around the change-over point from your
experiments.

Quoted message said:

I ran some tests in 2000 to compare bare head to helmeted head heat transfer. At air speed of 11
mph, there was no difference between the two cases. Interestingly, evaporative cooling is higher
when wearing a helmet (but radiative and convective cooling is lower). The higher evaporative
cooling overcame the lower radiative/convective cooling at 11 mph.

I concluded that a helmet was at least as cool as a bare head when exceeding 10 mph, but it was
hotter than a bare head at lower speeds.

I still think riding without a helmet cools faster, possibly due to the increased airflow. I am
surprised that your experiments showed more evaporative cooling with the helmet; I think there must
be more evaporation without the helmet than with, this is evidenced by the fact that when I take off
my helmet my hair is wet due to sweat, after riding without the helmet my hair dries. If there were
less evaporation my hair should get wetter without the helmet; which doesn't happen. It definitely
feels cooler without, especially in the time just after taking off the helmet when the hair is
wettest. I went to your website but didn't see any reference to "wet heads" or evaporation, did I
miss the link? Cheers Chris.

Quoted message said:

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Chris B said:

I still think riding without a helmet cools faster, possibly due to the increased airflow. I am
surprised that your experiments showed more evaporative cooling with the helmet; I think there
must be more evaporation without the helmet than with, this is evidenced by the fact that when I
take off my helmet my hair is wet due to sweat, after riding without the helmet my hair dries. If
there were less evaporation my hair should get wetter without the helmet; which doesn't happen. It
definitely feels cooler without, especially in the time just after taking off the helmet when the
hair is wettest. I went to your website but didn't see any reference to "wet heads" or
evaporation, did I miss the link?

I never got around to publishing the test resuts. They're locked away in a log book and would take
some time to extract. I suspect that the higher evaporative cooling (with air flow) of a helmet is
caused by the accelerated air flow over the head and through the channels of the helmet.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA htttp://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:48:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: They're fashionable. They're
attractive. They protect my head from very unpleasant sunburns, they have a visor that helps me
see in the bright sunlight, they're comfortable (and research has demonstrated that they are
cooler than a bare head), and oh by the way, as I've seen from my own

This sort of an aside, but where is the evidence that helmets are cooler than a bare head? I ride
in North Carolina in the summer; temps 95+ (35 C) and when I take the helmet off and ride my head
feels cooler. (I wear the helmet when I'm riding the technical single track and take it off too
cool down on the fire trail back to the car.) In addition a helmet must cut down on evaporative
cooling as it cuts wind flow. If there is evidence I'd like to see it, because it doesn't coincide
with my observations, so I'd like to know how they did the experiment.

Cheers, Chris.

Easy - sunshine.

The helmet is shading your noggin from direct radiation. Now, if the helmet isn't ventilated
enough, the sweat you expose to the breeze may make your head feel cooler when you first take the
helmet off.

This can be seen easily in SoCal - where a lot of folks drive their convertibles around with the
tops up. I didn't get it til I rented one down there - the sun shining down can be brutal, but the
top up provides shade.

Same principle, different application. 🙂

Spider

Terry Morse said:

Chris B said:

I still think riding without a helmet cools faster, possibly due to the increased airflow. I am
surprised that your experiments showed more evaporative cooling with the helmet; I think there
must be more evaporation without the helmet than with, this is evidenced by the fact that when I
take off my helmet my hair is wet due to sweat, after riding without the helmet my hair dries.
If there were less evaporation my hair should get wetter without the helmet; which doesn't
happen. It definitely feels cooler without, especially in the time just after taking off the
helmet when the hair is wettest. I went to your website but didn't see any reference to "wet
heads" or evaporation, did I miss the link?

I never got around to publishing the test resuts. They're locked away in a log book and would take
some time to extract. I suspect that the higher evaporative cooling (with air flow) of a helmet is
caused by the accelerated air flow over the head and through the channels of the helmet.

I think we'd need to see the results and all the details of the test to determine whether your
conclusions are correct. Were your tests done on actual riders, or on styrofoam heads as in the
"black vs. white" test? How did you measure heat loss by the various modes? How was the heat
generated? Was the test in sunshine or not, or both?

The human body is pretty complex. Excessively simple models can miss much.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's also an impact issue. Bike helmets are designed to absorb impact destructively, in a big
one-off accident.

How do you know that? I don't believe it. Do you know how they test these things?

Look for yourself. smf.orgstds.htmlOpen ↗

--
Dave...

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

Quoted message said:

Chris B said:

I still think riding without a helmet cools faster, possibly due to the increased airflow. I am
surprised that your experiments showed more evaporative cooling with the helmet; I think there
must be more

evaporation

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without the helmet than with, this is evidenced by the fact that when I

take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

off my helmet my hair is wet due to sweat, after riding without the

helmet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my hair dries. If there were less evaporation my hair should get wetter without the helmet;
which doesn't happen. It definitely feels cooler without, especially in the time just after
taking off the helmet when

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hair is wettest. I went to your website but didn't see any reference to

"wet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heads" or evaporation, did I miss the link?

I never got around to publishing the test resuts. They're locked away in a log book and would take
some time to extract. I suspect that the higher evaporative cooling (with air flow) of a helmet is
caused by the accelerated air flow over the head and through the channels of the helmet.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA htttp://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

I don't think there is increased flow with a helmet. The fact that hair dries when you take off the
helmet demonstrates more evaporation and should give a rough approximation about how much air flow
there is. I have gone to your website and according to this figure :
terrymorse.comtemps2.jpgOpen ↗, your data supports the idea that at both 6.5 and 5.0
mph the bare head is cooler (temp rise ~0.6 and .9 degrees at 5 and 6.5 ) than the helmeted (~1.2
and 1.5 respectively, white helmet). By the way what program (if any) did you use to generate the
different colors of the plot overtime, I've never seen a program do that. Cheers, Chris.

Frank Krygowski said:

Terry Morse said:

I never got around to publishing the test resuts. They're locked away in a log book and would
take some time to extract. I suspect that the higher evaporative cooling (with air flow) of a
helmet is caused by the accelerated air flow over the head and through the channels of the
helmet.

I think we'd need to see the results and all the details of the test to determine whether your
conclusions are correct. Were your tests done on actual riders, or on styrofoam heads as in the
"black vs. white" test? How did you measure heat loss by the various modes? How was the heat
generated? Was the test in sunshine or not, or both?

The human body is pretty complex. Excessively simple models can miss much.

That's why I didn't publish the results -- it would take too long to do it, and I'd have to spend
even more time defending critiques by non-specialists. But this is heat transfer, where the
uncertainty bars are pretty wide in any event. The evaporation difference was noticeable, though,
and that was surprising.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that the

Quoted message said:

higher evaporative cooling (with air flow) of a helmet is caused by

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

accelerated air flow over the head and through the channels of the helmet.

Physiological temperature regulation requires the regulation of 5 components: metabolic rate,
conduction, convection, insensible water loss, in addition to evaporation. A helmet would effect all
but metabolic rate (unless it was very heavy). Therefore, determining "flow rate" and seeing how
much "sweat" is on your head would not cover all of the physiologically relevant factors that a
helmet alters. For instance, the conduction of the helmet material (including shock absorber, and
the plastic covering) is invariably going to be less than that of air. Although "air flow" is an
important factor in "evaporation" of that sweat you guyz are talking about, convection is also
altered by the temperature gradient between your head and the helmet. Again, despite increased air
flow, if the conduction of the helmet is not high enough, over time, and on a hot enough day, the
decreased ability to regulate temperature physiologically will lead to a hotter head with a helmet.

Furthermore, temperature regulation requires that you take into account Surface and Core temperature
gradients. It is this gradient that induces sweating. Even if you have increased air flow under a
helmet, if the other factors lead to increased core temperature relative to surface tempertare you
will increase sweat production. Thus, despite increased evaporation, there will be more increased
sweat production (until you are dehydrated), and thus will have net excess in sweat with a helmet or
you will suffer heat shock.

For these reasons (among others), physiologically speaking it is recommended that you wear a helmet
for the purpose of protecting your cranium from trauma, not from overheating (until further
experimentation is done 🙂.

I think your experiment is cool (no pun intended) for comparing helmets. But it would not hold water
in a peer reviewed clinical journal until you accounted for these other factors. (Good work though!)

- JD

P.S. Would it be kosher with you if I used your results as part of the physiology course next year?