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



"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >



> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of

risk
> of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, martial arts, American
> football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is
> pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their
> ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most

rational
> folks.
>


So why do you support their use and compulsion of their use in an activity
which has a vanishingly small risk of head injury, and where their ability
to prevent any such head injury is essentially zero?
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You AHZ's always seem to be attempting to shift the debate. This thread

was
> discussing the relative risks/benefits of helmet wearing...nobody has said
> anything about mandatory helmet laws.


MHLs are linked by definition to any discussion of the putative merits of
cycle helmets.

>
> >
> > At least not yet.
> >
> > Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping
> > compulsion. Beware.

>
> That sounds like paranoia to me.
>


No, it's the stated platform of politicians.
 
jtaylor wrote:

>
> On the contrary, anecdote can prove anything


Is that an anecdote or a statistic? ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>


There is _absolutely_ no truth to the rumour that the Bush adminstration has
plans, while in its third term, to require rfid chips to be embeded in cycle
helmets for the purposes of ensuring that the wearers ride only on
designated paths during daylight hours. While no national US helmet law is
contemplated at this time, states which do not pass such a law will not
receive any further federal funding for road construction due to the
additional damage to the roadbed from bicycle traffic.
 
On Wed, 31 May 2006 13:12:50 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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,


Oops, I thought his name was Bill Sorni.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.


Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who
I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything. The
old "we've been posting for longer than you so we must be right" is
really one of the weakest defences/attacks in the history of
usenet. Imagine if Mike Tyson concurred when he climbed into the ring
with Michael Spinks? Oh, he's been boxing longer so he must be
right/better ...

Incidentally, my email address is real.
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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).
>


How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"?

The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more
dangerous.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"
>
> --


Yup.

Think of the Children.
 
> and where their ability to prevent any such head injury is essentially
> zero?


Eh?
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally
> > pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer
> > serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking.

>
> What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on
> average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that their
> rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway,

that
> would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to.
>


It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any
measure they are not worth considering.

A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a
day. The percentage of _those_ deaths that are due to head injuries that
somehow could have been miraculously prevented by a 1 inch thick foam hat is
also SO small that really, helmet wearing and MHLs should just not exist.

No one wears a helmet in the shower.

No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street.

37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet
compulsion laws.
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:u%[email protected]...
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:20:01 +0200, Hadron Quark
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling.

>
> > That pretty much says it all: cycling is somehow so different it
> > requires a different sort of "logic" in talking about safety than
> > other practices.

>
> Let's see... {looking at the NG field} Yup, just what I thought. These

are
> cycling newsgroups.
>
> Now if there's a helmet thread in a...say, skateboarding NG or a
> rollerblading NG or a /walking/ NG, then perhaps the members of those

groups
> would restrict their discussions to those activities. At least ideally.
>
> > Lame.

>
> Insults and put-downs of someone who doesn't tow your line? You're right.
>


Where is the insult/"put-down"?
 
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >



> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of

risk
> of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, martial arts, American
> football and baseball, etc.). For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is
> pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their
> ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most
> rational
> folks.


I still don't understand why you don't use helmets in cars that lack
airbags. The cost-benefit ratio is pretty clear. Their use involves
little discomfort and little cost relative to the cost of a car (or to
the cost of a head injury!).

Or perhaps you do.

Hope you have a nice bike mission, I mean bike ride, today and can
complete the mission.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Hadron Quark wrote:

>
> Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who
> I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything.


Who you are really doesn't bother me, it's just an observation that one
side of this debate seems more prone to hiding their identities than the
other. Make of that what you will.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the

(generally
> > > pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer
> > > serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking.

> >
> > What about per unit of time travelled? Given that cyclists travel on
> > average about 4-5 times as fast as a pedestrian, I would assume that

their
> > rate of injury per unit of time may be greater than for peds. Anyway,

> that
> > would seem to be the more relevant statistic to compare to.
> >

>
> It doesn't really matter - the risks of cycling are SO small that by any
> measure they are not worth considering.
>
> A typical value is one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a
> day.


Cite? That value seems quite low...how does that compare to the rate of
death while driving? And, how about the injury rate?

> The percentage of _those_ deaths that are due to head injuries that
> somehow could have been miraculously prevented by a 1 inch thick foam hat

is
> also SO small that really, helmet wearing and MHLs should just not exist.


And yet, every day people are injured and killed while bicycling. And even
the AHZ's admit that helmets confer *some* degree of protection, so I'll
continue to accept the limitation of helmets in return for the risk they
*can* mitigate.

> No one wears a helmet in the shower.


I would if I were showering at 30 kph in traffic!

> No one wears a helmet while walking across a downtown street.
>
> 37 American states and many other large countries have cycle helmet
> compulsion laws.


Who's talking about compulsion (besides you AHZ's)?

GG

>
>
>
 
Hadron Quark wrote:

>> 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 get your thinking gear turned on. All of the above were
considered self evident at some time in the past; it's only gaining more
information than the public had at the time has let us see that they're
nonsense.

You can't assume everything you currently hold as self evident /must/ be
true, as it's subject to revision with more information, just like the
Earth being the centre of the universe etc.

Or do you really think that you've reached some level of enlightenment
that people of even the relatively recent past could not, since /your/
"common sense" is always right and theirs was often disastrously wrong?

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/
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> 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.


While off the bike, the helmet hangs easily over the bars. Or, if I'm just
off for a few minutes then yes, it stays on my head.

>
> >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.


Sounds like a personal hygiene issue...some people sweat heavily and/or have
sweat that smells badly. I've never noticed any undue odor from my pads and
straps, and rinsing them with water seems to take care of salt buildup on
the straps.

>
> >
> >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.


LOL - I live where it often exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, so I know
something about cycling in the heat.

> >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.


Perhaps that's it then...it's a psychological thing...you're afraid of being
seen as part of the "gang" and use your helmet stance to stake your claim as
an outsider.

> 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).


I was just yanking your chain...your cycling bona fides are clearly well
established.

> 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.


For most of us, their ability to mitigate risk is enough reason to wear
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.


Slow down and re-read what I wrote, because you missed my meaning. It's my
"head" that's the mission critical piece of my cycling kit.

> >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.


Life's like that sometimes...

GG

> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


That just reflects your own biases in how you read what I wrote. I was
making a small joke that my "head" is the mission critical piece of my
cycling kit. That you're so wrapped up in AH Zealotry that you failed to
detect that is instructive.

GG

>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:h%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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).
> >

>
> How do you know it is a "risk-mitigating device"?
>
> The best and most recent studies show that cycle helmets make cycling more
> dangerous.
>


Were that the case, American lawyers would be lining up to sue the
manufacturers (they do for every other thing, real or imagined). That they
are not leads me (and most others) to conclude that there is no evidence to
support your contention.

GG
 
GaryG wrote:

> That just reflects your own biases in how you read what I wrote. I was
> making a small joke that my "head" is the mission critical piece of my
> cycling kit. That you're so wrapped up in AH Zealotry that you failed to
> detect that is instructive.


It's also a mission critical part of your walking, driving and domestic
handyman jobs kit. So do you wear a helmet for those?

If not, why not? You're so wrapped up in people being "anti helmet
zealots" you fail to realise you're foregoing useful protection yourself
most of the time.

Your biases come over by making cycling out to be so much more dangerous
than numerous other things everyone does without a helmet that can get
us just as hurt and just as dead just as easily.

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:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 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.

>
> Aha : the old "only been around" line eh? If you really want to know who
> I am, I can email you : but I dont see as how that changes anything. The
> old "we've been posting for longer than you so we must be right" is
> really one of the weakest defences/attacks in the history of
> usenet. Imagine if Mike Tyson concurred when he climbed into the ring
> with Michael Spinks? Oh, he's been boxing longer so he must be
> right/better ...
>
> Incidentally, my email address is real.


And how real is "Tony Raven"? How real is that email addy? Does anyone
know?