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



Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
> "population statistics".
>
> You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a
> given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film
> or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad.

But reviews are singular opinions, not population statistics.
Furthermore, while my enjoyment of a film or meal is a subjective
experience, getting killed or injured isn't.

There are undoubtedly people in the world that have been in a train
crash but not a car crash. According to your "logic", they are taking
their safety best into account in future if they travel by car. While I
realise human nature is such that people will probably do that, it means
they have psychological issues or are innumerate, rather than they are
safer.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
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.

Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the
Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice
as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph will
suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain has no
function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles
of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused autism, and so on
(and on, and on).

The relentless failures of common sense are why we use statistics.
They're certainly not infallible, just as highly improbable outcomes
aren't impossible, but they work a lot better than "common sense" in
complex issues where people are making wrong assumptions for their
groundwork.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Hadron Quark wrote:

> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
> jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.

But why are kids on foot who fall due to "unforseen impetus" regarded
differently to cyclists who fall with "unforseen impetus"? They're all
hitting the ground and potentially hurting their heads, what they were
doing in the run up is immaterial.

> And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head
> hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet?

Depends on the accident, as has been said.

I note that "the question" above makes *no* distinction between whether
the accident happened when running, walking, or cycling. Clearly if
there is a single answer to it, it should apply to them all.

> Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them?

I haven't studied the field enough to be able to give a reasonable
answer. "Common sense" says yes, but common sense isn't good enough.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> writes:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[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
>>
>
> Blasphemer!!! How dare you bring your personal experience with the
> ostensible injury reducing benefits of a helmet into this hallowed
> intellectual discussion?
>
> Since you've raised the issue, be prepared to hear that:
>
> 1) You're a very poor cyclist. "Real" cyclists never get hit by cars, or
> fall down.

Peter? Is that you?
>
> 2) Your injuries were worse than they would otherwise have been due to the
> presence of the helmet on your head (rotational forces increased due to
> additional circumference and weight, etc., etc.). Be thankful that you're
> still alive given your ridiculous choice in headgear.

It is!

>
> 3) You would have survived those head impacts just as well, if not better,
> if you had been wearing a proper cotton cycling cap (or, better yet, nothing
> at all).

Yep. Its you alright. But why didnt you advocate wearing it for walking
to the toilet too because statistically .... blah blah blah.

>
> 4) You've clearly not studied the available research which proves (to some
> AHZ stalwarts anyway) that wearing helmets increases the risk of head
> injuries (unless you wear one while showering).
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.
>
> Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the
> Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice
> as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph
> will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain
> has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large
> stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused
> autism, and so on (and on, and on).

Oh please.
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
>> jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.
>
> But why are kids on foot who fall due to "unforseen impetus" regarded
> differently to cyclists who fall with "unforseen impetus"? They're
> all hitting the ground and potentially hurting their heads, what they
> were doing in the run up is immaterial.

So what? Maybe you should discuss this in who.will.care.for.the.children
newsgroup? It doesnt seem relevant here.

>
>> And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head
>> hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet?
>
> Depends on the accident, as has been said.
>

Yesss ....

> I note that "the question" above makes *no* distinction between
> whether the accident happened when running, walking, or cycling.
> Clearly if there is a single answer to it, it should apply to them
> all.

Clearly you are emplying your usual baffle answers-

>
>> Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them?
>
> I haven't studied the field enough to be able to give a reasonable
> answer. "Common sense" says yes, but common sense isn't good enough.

Statistics can prove anything. I doubt very much if I can find anyone
who has banged their head in 30 years of walking down the street : yet
can find many who have bashed their heads to various degrees when taking
tumbles off bikes.

Now : better with helmet on or better with it off? You know the question
by now.
 
Kevan Smith wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There are those that believe the Earth is flat because all they can see
> > is flatness.
>
> That seems dubious.

What seems dubious? That the Earth seems flat, or that some people
still believe it? People believe in all kinds of ridiculous things
including alien abduction and the faking by Nasa of the moon landings.

--
Dave...
 
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:28:19 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
>> >> >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
>> >> >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
>> >> >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went
>> >> >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
>> >> >enough evidence for me.
>> >>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> The helmet is another thing to carry around, keep clean, mess up hair,
>> etc. And can be hot. Scrape and bruises are rare and not necessarily
>> worth preventing.
>
>I guess my experience with them is different than yours.
>
>Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head).

You wear yours indoors too when you're walking around? OK, at least
that's consistent.

>Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps
>and pads and they're good to go.

That doesn't work for me. I have to wash the thing and let it dry.

Do you do the same thing with other clothes -- give them a quick
spritz with water and them put it on? And wear the same one every day
without cleaning with soap? Frankly I think that's nasty.

>
>Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :).
>
>Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet.

No, sounds like you haven't ridden enough without a helmet on a hot
day.

>Even
>on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very
>slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem).

I do ride very very slowly sometimes. When I'm riding to work in
street clothes in the summer. Your comment about that being a problem
is typical of the "roadie" mentality -- the attitude of too many
primarily athletic riders who (consciously or subconsciously) view
helmet wearing as part of their "gang colors." Helmets show they take
the sport seriously.

There's more to riding than that.
>
>As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack
>of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet.

Yes, lack of experience. I mean, I've only ridden my bike across the
United States, lived in China for a couple years and used it as
primary transportation every day, been a bike messenger in New York
City, am a category 2 racing cyclist and 2-time masters state road
champion, have been on at least two racing teams where I got top-line
helmets for free, and was a long-time bike commuter. Oh yeah, and
former board member/officer of two of the oldest cycling clubs in the
United States. And used helmets "religiously* for four or five years
in the 1980s and still use them a lot (they're required in races and
in some place I ride my bike).

So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I
haven't experienced enough in cycling.

And "excuses" for not wearing them? I think it's more appopriate to
say there should be "reasons" for wearing them.

>As for scrapes and bruises to my head "not necessarily worth preventing"...I
>disagree. Even though the day to day risk are low, I still prefer to wear a
>risk mitigating device on my head (given that it's a mission critical piece
>of my cycling kit).

Mission critical? So you're one of those people who would never ride
without a helmet. That says a lot.

>Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air
>bags).

So if the general rule that if there are two risk mitigating devices
present then you don't need any more? Or is it just one? That number
seems pretty arbitrary.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Wearing a strong helmet in a car will
>> also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear
>> one?
>
>Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air
>bags).

Sounds like you are looking for excuses not to wear a helmet in a car.
Unless the car has side-curtain airbags, there is still a risk of
hitting your head on the side window if the car is hit from the side
(that is why side-curtain airbags were invented).

But sadly side-curtain airbags are not yet present in all cars.
Including taxies. You really should have a helmet in those cases.
Do you use one then?

Please don't use seatbelts as an excuse.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:15 -0700, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
wrote:


> I still prefer to wear a
> risk mitigating device on my head (given
> that it's a mission critical piece
> of my cycling kit).

Sorry to come back to this, but I still have to laugh at the "mission
critical" term. It's so serious and macho-sounding.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> The ones left cycling are the ones most likely to get hurt ("serious"
>>> riders).
>>>
>
>
>> However the evidence is that the "serious" cyclists have the lowest risk
>> of injury. The data from five studies* is that the accidents per
>> million miles (average annual miles) is 550 (580) for elementary school
>> student, 510 (600) for college students, 340 (814) for commuters, 113
>> (2,400) for League of American Bicyclists and 66 (2000) for Cyclists'
>> Touring Club members. So the serious cyclists have the lowest accident
>> rate, the inverse of your proposition
>>
>> * Chlapecka et al 1975; Schupack and Driessen 1976; Aultman-Hall and
>> Kaltenecker 1998; Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1998
>>
>> --
>
>
> Oooops.
>
> Classic helmet zealot error.
>
>

His hypothesis didn't work anyway but I feel a campaign for mandatory
CTC membership coming on - after all a CTC membership card clearly
prevents 90% of cycling accidents. ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> I was thinking something similar earlier. Since collarbone fractures are
> by far a more common cycling injury (anecdotally), why hasn't anyone
> developed some sort of protective gear for it? And, what would it look
> like? It might be so bulky and hot as to spoil the fun of riding on a
> warm enough day. Sort of like a lid.
>

A straightjacket? Virtually all collarbone fractures are the result of
putting your arms out to stop the fall. A direct fracture is very rare
indeed.

Impractical for cycling "but if just one collarbone could be saved"

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
In article <[email protected]>, GaryG
([email protected]) wrote:
> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...

>> Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping
>> compulsion. Beware.
>
> That sounds like paranoia to me.

Members of the British government are on record as stating that when the
wearing of MartleHats reaches a certain percentage of the cycling
population, they WILL introduce an MHL. This is because they are a
bunch of control freaks who, were they able, would dissolve The People
and vote themselves another which /didn't/ object to the steady erosion
of its collective civil liberties.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
 
GaryG wrote:
>
> "faff"? - I'm not familiar with that term and dictionary.com was no help.
> If you're implying that wearing a helmet is a painful experience for you,
> perhaps you should try a different model...most modern helmets are hardly
> noticeable once properly adjusted. As for the "pain of not wearing
> it"...that would seem to be making my point, so I assume you've misspoken.
>



Faff v. intr, dial. and colloq. To fuss, to dither. Often with about.
Also as n., fuss, ‘flap’.
http://oed.com



--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I
> haven't experienced enough in cycling.
>

I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who
question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and
those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like
Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Common sense isn't good enough. It has variously told people that the
> > Earth is flat, it was created in 7 days, a 2 lb weight will fall twice
> > as fast as a 1 lb weight, people riding in open carriages at 30 mph
> > will suffocate, butter is the best thing to apply to burns, the brain
> > has no function beyond cooling the blood, Saddam Hussein had large
> > stockpiles of Waepons of Mass Destruction, the MMR vaccine caused
> > autism, and so on (and on, and on).
>
> Oh please.

Please what?

Are you attempting to counter the facts listed above with "Oh please?"

That's about as effective as, oh, say, "Common sense says this is rubbish".
 
On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:00:49 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> So WTF do I know about helmets? Please give me some more advice -- I
>> haven't experienced enough in cycling.
>>
>
>I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who
>question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and
>those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like
>Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be?

Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Sorni is part of a real name. Hadron Quark might be -- I don't know.
>

Sorni is kind of close to Bill Sorenson, Ozark Bicycle is nothing like
Richard Malesweski. Who Strange Quark is is anyone's guess as he's only
been around for a month.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Statistics can prove anything. I doubt very much if I can find anyone
> who has banged their head in 30 years of walking down the street : yet
> can find many who have bashed their heads to various degrees when taking
> tumbles off bikes.
>

On the contrary, anecdote can prove anything. As you so conveniently
supply, above.

The reason why we use statistics is that, properly done (controls, matching,
large sample sizes, confidence intervals, etcetera), they are far superior
to anecdote. They are also far superior to the plural of anecdote, which
some people here are erroneously calling "common sense".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: This is getting expensive (helmets)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Ozark Bicycle
O
P
Prymegear helmets
Replies
5
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J
E
Helmets
Replies
110
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Buck
B
N
No Helmets Needed?
Replies
209
Views
7K
Recumbent bicycles
NYC XYZ
N
F
  • Locked
How many TT helmets are CPSC legal?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Dave Larrington
D
Top Bottom Back