Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

[Hadron Quark]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> Quoting GaryG <[email protected]>:
>>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>>They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>
> Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes.

That would be a different thread : it is helmets being discussed here -
for cycling.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling?
> >> >
> >> > Showering, no, walking, yes.
> >>
> >> Common sense says this is rubbish.
> >
> > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
> > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability
> > and statistics.)
>
> I dont believe the stats then.
>
> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more
> dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit?

I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are
rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you
(and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating
showers than I and mine do.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John B wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > John B wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > > Funny thing, I've been walking
> > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling
> > >
> > > It seems you need some cycle-training.
> > > You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike.
> > >
> >
> > If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at
> > least at the beginning.
>
> Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be
> your ultimate undoing.
> i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom.
>
>

By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew.

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency}
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive
>>>> of serious head injuries" as is cycling?

>>> Showering, no, walking, yes.

>> Common sense says this is rubbish.

> And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong.

I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I dunno...say, 20
to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking amongst this group. (And,
I'd venture to guess that the injury rate expressed as a percentage among
all participants is quite a bit higher for cycling than...um, walking
around.)

B

 

[Hadron Quark]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
>> >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>> >> >
>> >> > Showering, no, walking, yes.
>> >>
>> >> Common sense says this is rubbish.
>> >
>> > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
>> > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability
>> > and statistics.)
>>
>> I dont believe the stats then.
>>
>> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more
>> dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit?
>
> I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are
> rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you

Actually there are since my shower is behind the wall which borders a
busy road. Probably about the same distance as the cards are to the
pedestrians I would say. The cars which are doing 30mph max in built up
traffic.


> (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating
> showers than I and mine do.
>

eh?

 

[Sorni]

Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as
>>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>>>>>
>>>>> Showering, no, walking, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Common sense says this is rubbish.
>>>
>>> Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
>>> sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk,
>>> probability
>>> and statistics.)
>>
>> I dont believe the stats then.
>>
>> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is
>> more dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit?
>
> I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are
> rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you
> (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating
> showers than I and mine do.

That's called moving the goal post by adding elements.

HTH, B

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> MSeries wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> MSeries wrote:
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as
>>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing,
>>>>>> I've been walking alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have
>>>>>> never struck my head in a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy
>>>>>> winter conditions for over 40 years. Never hit my head in a fall
>>>>>> (or even fell) in the shower, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your point ?
>>>>
>>>> If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so
>>>> cleverly snipped out.

>>> Oooh, having a bad day ?
>>
>>
>> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.


> Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the
> insult. Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you
> are correct.

And yet you give a pass to MSeries' insulting and childish tactics. Typical
double standard hypocrisy. (Hint: instead of addressing the point that
he'd snipped something pertinent to the argument, he made a snotty remark
which was met in kind. And you take the time to attack THAT. Classic.)

 

[John B]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> John B wrote:
> >
> > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be
> > your ultimate undoing.
> > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom.
>
> By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew.

That's one way to alleviate the pain.

Mine? Learn to ride skillfully.

John B

 

[jtaylor]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive
of
> >> >> serious head injuries" as is cycling?
> >> >
> >> > Showering, no, walking, yes.
> >>
> >> Common sense says this is rubbish.
> >
> > Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
> > sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability
> > and statistics.)
>
> I dont believe the stats then.
>

Well, there's just no arguring with that, then.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:23:37 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency}
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive
>>>>> of serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>
>>>> Showering, no, walking, yes.
>
>>> Common sense says this is rubbish.
>
>> And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong.
>
>I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I dunno...say, 20
>to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking amongst this group. (And,
>I'd venture to guess that the injury rate expressed as a percentage among
>all participants is quite a bit higher for cycling than...um, walking
>around.)
>
>B

Dear Bill,

Yes, statistics and percentages can be quite helpful.

Glad to see you taking an interest in them.



Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

I have been doing long distance self contained touring for about 20
years and have been hit by cars twice.

Both times was hit within a mile of my home while riding in the middle
of a group of bicycles. In each case a car rode directly across the
road from a cross street through the group of riders. How lucky can you
be.

In both cases although low speed collisions, I was thrown from bike and
landed by hitting my head on the curbing.

The first time in 1986 an MG hit my front wheel throwing me into the
air. I landed on my back and the back of my head hit the curbing. It
must have hit fairly hard because my glasses were throw completely
across the road despite the eye glass retaining strap I was wearing.
The driver kept on going but was caught by another driver. I was
stunned, My back abraded. My glasses were gouged, my front wheel and
fork were a pretzel and my helmet (a bell hard shell) was cracked. But
I was just dazed and abraded, otherwise unhurt. I think the helmet
saved my life.

The second time in 1998, I was the middle of three riders on the same
street as the previous accident. A Chevy station wagon, ran a stop sign
and hit me. This time she hit closer to the middle of the bike and I
was thrown across the street and hit head first on the curbing. This
must say something about the weight of my head versus the rest of my
body. I was knocked out. and had some pretty deep gouges on my right
leg and ankle, a strained neck and shoulder plus lots of bruises. My
helmet didn't crack this time (it was a Giro) but I was happy to
replace it. Again, I think the helmet saved my life.

I have been run off the road since but luckily not hit. There are two
things I take away from these incidents:

1. Stay off of that street

2. Always wear my helmet especially when I ride near home.

Roland

Dover, NH
ebent.com

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John B wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > John B wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be
> > > your ultimate undoing.
> > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom.
> >
> > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew.
>
> That's one way to alleviate the pain.
>
> Mine? Learn to ride skillfully.
>


Ring me up when stateside, boyo.

 

[Kevan]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote in
news0b*[email protected]:

> Quoting Cathy Kearns <[email protected]>:
>>"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in
>>message
>>>Simple: tell them they can't ride without one.
>>Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The
>>other decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she
>>entered junior high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way.
>
> So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that
> child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she
> takes up smoking, too?

Well, the kid is still _walking_ three miles a day. That's good exercise,
too.

KS

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:36:08 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more
> >> dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit?
> >
> > I would expect it is. My experience of showers is that there are
> > rarely cars passing in close proximity at high speed. Possibly you
>
> Actually there are since my shower is behind the wall which borders a
> busy road. Probably about the same distance as the cards are to the
> pedestrians I would say. The cars which are doing 30mph max in built up
> traffic.

It seems unlikely. Unless the pedestrians are passing through your
shower cubicle.

Most showers are located further from the traffic than most
pavements. Further, most showers have a solid barrier between the
inhabitants and passing motor traffic, and most pavements do not.

Are you going to deny those assertions too?

> > (and/or your local society) have different criteria for locating
> > showers than I and mine do.
>
> eh?

The society in which I live rarely installs showers at the roadside,
and rarely has pavements that are not at the roadside. Yours may be
different (I don't know what place you inhabit). It's physically
possible that you're telling the truth and the average shower is
similar distance and similarly protected from passing motor traffic as
the average pavement in wherever it is. I think it unlikely, but it
is possible.

Consequently, it may be that you are being honest in your assessments.
I think it unlikely, but it is possible.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:23:37 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote: {format cleaned up for coherency}
>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as
>>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>>
>>>>> Showering, no, walking, yes.
>>
>>>> Common sense says this is rubbish.
>>
>>> And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong.
>>
>> I'd like to see the statistics for healthy adults aged...I
>> dunno...say, 20 to 65. I somehow doubt the "danger" of walking
>> amongst this group. (And, I'd venture to guess that the injury rate
>> expressed as a percentage among all participants is quite a bit
>> higher for cycling than...um, walking around.)
>>
>> B
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Yes, statistics and percentages can be quite helpful.
>
> Glad to see you taking an interest in them.

Just the honest ones, Carl. Thanks.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> MSeries wrote:
> >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>> MSeries wrote:
> >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as
> >>>>>> productive of serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing,
> >>>>>> I've been walking alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have
> >>>>>> never struck my head in a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy
> >>>>>> winter conditions for over 40 years. Never hit my head in a fall
> >>>>>> (or even fell) in the shower, either.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is your point ?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so
> >>>> cleverly snipped out.
>
> >>> Oooh, having a bad day ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.
>
>
> > Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the
> > insult. Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you
> > are correct.
>
> And yet you give a pass to MSeries' insulting and childish tactics. Typical
> double standard hypocrisy. (Hint: instead of addressing the point that
> he'd snipped something pertinent to the argument, he made a snotty remark
> which was met in kind. And you take the time to attack THAT. Classic.)

Classic URC AHZ tactics, indeed.

 

[John B]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> John B wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > > John B wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be
> > > > your ultimate undoing.
> > > > i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom.
> > >
> > > By which time I'll likely be home, sipping an apres ride seasonal brew.
> >
> > That's one way to alleviate the pain.
> >
> > Mine? Learn to ride skillfully.
>
> Ring me up when stateside, boyo.

Will do. You'll find my training charges very reasonable.

John B

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes
>> that 85% thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet
>> usually can not prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head
>> injury, so those numbers won't decrease very much if at all.
>
> I know you said injury rates but that has the complication of changes
> with the number of people cycling obscuring the underlying number of
> injuries. If you take absolute numbers of injuries it is difficult to
> see how your hypothesis could not lead to a reduction in the absolute
> number unless helmets didn't work.

The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious"
riders).

> So we now have that you don't believe helmets prevent fatal or near
> fatal injuries and that the 85% reduction figure for the rest cannot
> be taken seriously. So which parts of your starting position are we
> left with and what reduction figure would you take seriously?

Lovely straw/men/. (Hint: MY starting position was never 85%, nor was it
that helmets can prevent fatalities -- at least not typically.)

My starting position (in these threads) is exactly the same as my current
position: namely, that wearing a helmet while road cycling and mountain
biking is a very smart thing to do. It can lessen both the likelihood and
severity of injury in the event of the types of falls that can happen to
even the most careful and experienced cyclist.


>>> But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of
>>> head injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?)
>>> Which means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle.
>>
>> I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying
>> values given.
>>
>
> And I've given you the identifying values ^, but if you are incapable
> of reading a simple graph I can see why you would avoid reading
> research papers.

I haven't seen your reply to that yet. (There ARE like 160 new posts just
in RBT, you know.) I can read simple graphs just fine, thanks. The ones
you posted were just plain comical as shown; perhaps your filling in all the
mystery pieces will help me take them seriously. (PERHAPS.)

 

[Don Whybrow]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

Ooh look! Oz-Troll is back

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the
liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the
Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an
anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent
>>> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping
>>> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of
>>> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for
>>> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective
>>> headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or
>>> "pathetic".
>>
>> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running
>> and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen
>> impetus.
>>
>
> And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your
> service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts
> where they would do more good?
>
> Think of the Children!

Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting?

Classic stuff...