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



GaryG wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL
>>
>>In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both
>>reproduce and be safe, probably...
>>
>>I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's
>>try again:
>>
>>It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex.
>>Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the
>>deck as possible.
>>It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the
>>muscles cannot keep the head off the deck.
>>Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and
>>heavier head.
>>In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to
>>take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one.
>>
>>How's that?
>
>
> If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you
> might have an argument.
>
> But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass,
> I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they
> are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up.
>
> Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in
> a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd
> much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my
> unprotected scalp.
>
> GG
>
>
>>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/
>
>
>

WTF? Cross-posting to rec.bicycles.marketplace?!?

Aren't you worried about all the other potentially fatal wounds you
might receive in an accident? How do those risks compare to those from
head injuries?


Robin Hubert
 
"Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> > "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Sorni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So the more we wear helmets the safer we'll be, evolution-wise. LOL
> >>
> >>In the long term if wearing them enhances your ability to both
> >>reproduce and be safe, probably...
> >>
> >>I'll freely admit I wasn't too coherent in my arguments here, let's
> >>try again:
> >>
> >>It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex.
> >>Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the
> >>deck as possible.
> >>It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the
> >>muscles cannot keep the head off the deck.
> >>Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and
> >>heavier head.
> >>In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to
> >>take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one.
> >>
> >>How's that?
> >
> >
> > If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel,
you
> > might have an argument.
> >
> > But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional
mass,
> > I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit
whatsoever...they
> > are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up.
> >
> > Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the
ground in
> > a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.),
I'd
> > much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my
> > unprotected scalp.
> >
> > GG
> >
> >
> >>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/
> >
> >
> >
>
> WTF? Cross-posting to rec.bicycles.marketplace?!?
>
> Aren't you worried about all the other potentially fatal wounds you
> might receive in an accident? How do those risks compare to those from
> head injuries?
>
>
> Robin Hubert

My apologies...I just hit Reply to Peter's message and didn't notice that it
was cross-posted to rbm.

I agree that rbm is an inappropriate group for this topic, so I've trimmed
it off.

GG
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > It is natural to try and keep your head away from impacts by reflex.
> > Reflex action will try and keep your head as far away fromn the
> > deck as possible.
> > It does not always succeed, therefore there are times when the
> > muscles cannot keep the head off the deck.
> > Those situations are more likely to crop up with a bigger and
> > heavier head.
> > In any given crash, a bigger and heavier head is more likely to
> > take a hit than an otherwise smaller and lighter one.
> >
> > How's that?
>
> If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you
> might have an argument.
>
> But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass,
> I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...they
> are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

I wear a hard hat, and always clank it into stuff. I will
say to myself, "Self, you are wearing a hard hat. Watch
your step." For a while that works, then I stop devoting
attention to such a ridiculous thought: that my head is
bigger than it is. Ludicrous. Then Blam! I smacked it into
something again. I have been wearing eyeglasses for
decades, and still knock theem off in close quarters. We
really have hardwired into us how big our head is. Even a
billed cap is knocked askew, as often as not.

> Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in
> a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd
> much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my
> unprotected scalp.

If I had not been wearing that impossible hard hat, I
would never have knocked it or my head into solid objects.
Noone will mistake me for Mikhail Baryshnikov, yet I do
not smack my unadorned head into solid objects; not at
all.

--
Michael Press
 
GaryG wrote:

> If helmets were 1 meter in diameter, and made out of stainless steel, you
> might have an argument.
>
> But given that helmets only add about 2 cm of radius and 5% additional mass,
> I still think your arguments in this regard have no merit whatsoever...

Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from
hitting the deck given the same support.

> are, at best, mere speculation with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

It's hardly "mere speculation" that bigger targets are easier to hit.

What about the paper I suggested?

> Nevertheless, if my reflexes fail to keep my head from hitting the ground in
> a fall (due to the type of fall, the force or angle of the fall, etc.), I'd
> much rather have a helmet absorb the initial impact instead of my
> unprotected scalp.

Fine, but that's not the point at hand. Yes, if someone whacks me over
the head with a baseball bat I'd sooner be wearing a helmet than a
cycling cap. But if the bat is swung vigorously 1cm away from my head
then the fact is the helmet /then/ makes me worse off.

Which it wouldn't do if it was /only/ ever a benefit or totally irrelevant.

Thus, you cannot say for /sure/ that in an accident you must be better
off with a helmet.

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/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Bigger is bigger is bigger. It is hard to keep something bigger from
> hitting the deck given the same support.

<typo time>
That should be hard/er/, rather than just hard
</typo time>

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/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> GaryG wrote:

>> In a fall from a bike, one's head is moving rapidly towards the
>> ground...that's very different from a "grazing" hit from a baseball
>> bat or a cave wall.

> Is it necessarily so? You don't seem to be taking into account the
> possibility of a slide, which is certainly far more common IME than
> over the bars (which I've only ever managed twice in my life to date,
> last time I was wearing a helmet and since I landed on my chin it did
> me bugger all good).

So what if you'd landed on the /side/ of your head? Or the back? Or the
top? Or the forefront (hairline not chin)?

> Having asked for a study I gave you a reference suggesting that those
> wearing a helmet are 7 times as likely to hit their heads if they
> crash.

SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think
that study could be hugely flawed?

If it's from somewhere with MHLs in effect, is it just possible that people
LIE to avoid fines or at least lectures?

> So I wonder where the figures above came from?

Thin air? Clear bias? Someone's butt?

>> compared to the rate of incidents in which a helmeted head was
>> protected from injury.

> So why don't any benefits show up in population data from increased
> helmet wearing?

People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons ranging
from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to just
wanting to avoid a scolding.

And, of course, people who ARE lidded often aren't hurt and so don't end up
being counted at all.

FACT: because people lie about it, the number of injured helmet wearers is
LESS than is reported.

FACT: therefore, the number of unhelmeted injured is GREATER than is
reported.

(Is there ever a case where someone was wearing a helmet and lied and said
he or she wasn't??? Other than one of you guys, maybe, I don't think so...)

Ayyup.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> > Having asked for a study I gave you a reference suggesting that those
> > wearing a helmet are 7 times as likely to hit their heads if they
> > crash.
>
> SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think
> that study could be hugely flawed?

Sorni, please, no handwaving. Instead, explain the study's flaws in
detail.

Start by giving a decent citation, and some actual quotes. That would
indicate there's a _chance_ you read the study in question. (And it
would surprise the heck out of us!)


Oh, and if you were going to say "I don't have time to read studies,"
as you have before, PLEASE stop wasting time by posting.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Sorni wrote:

> So what if you'd landed on the /side/ of your head? Or the back? Or the
> top? Or the forefront (hairline not chin)?

So then it might have done me some good. And what if I'd landed in
a twisting fall so that the helmet could have applied some extra
leverage to my neck? Then it might have done me some bad.

All conjecture. So what?

> SEVEN times more likely? And that seems reasonable to you? You don't think
> that study could be hugely flawed?

Oh, so let's just assume it's junk without any further attention...
if only people would have done that with 85% helmet effectiveness!

> Thin air? Clear bias? Someone's butt?

Don't go and look, or anything like that!

> People who aren't wearing a lid LIE and say they were. Many reasons ranging
> from the authorities to insurance companies to nagging spouses to just
> wanting to avoid a scolding.

Deary me. Unfortunately your risible attempts at an explanation
don't get you anywhere with Hewson's work in the UK showing no
benefit, because there have been ni successful claims for
contributory negligence and there isn't an MHL to lie your way past.

> And, of course, people who ARE lidded often aren't hurt and so don't end up
> being counted at all.

So that should see a drop in the head injuries, but no such thing
ocurrs.

> FACT: because people lie about it, the number of injured helmet wearers is
> LESS than is reported.

The "FACT" is pure supposition on your part.

> FACT: therefore, the number of unhelmeted injured is GREATER than is
> reported.

the "FACT" is pure supposition on your part.

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/
 
Sorni wrote:

> Easy. I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the
> severity of some types of injuries.

But if they lessen /serious/ injuries they should be bringing some fatal
accidents back to merely serious, bringing the death rate down. But
they don't.

As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really
denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/.

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/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Easy. I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the
>> severity of some types of injuries.
>
> But if they lessen /serious/ injuries they should be bringing some
> fatal accidents back to merely serious, bringing the death rate down.
> But they don't.
>
> As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really
> denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/.

If you read the threads, a lot of people ARE "denying that". In fact, they
say that helmets are /dangerous/, and one even claims that studies (or at
least *a* study) show(s) that you're 7 times more likely to hit your head
wearing a lid versus not wearing one.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:

>> As it is, they almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really
>> denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/.
>
> If you read the threads, a lot of people ARE "denying that". In fact, they
> say that helmets are /dangerous/, and one even claims that studies (or at
> least *a* study) show(s) that you're 7 times more likely to hit your head
> wearing a lid versus not wearing one.

I know it's a tall order, but stop and think about it... the above are
/not/ mutually exclusive.

I wear a helmet caving not to prevent me hitting my head, but to prevent
me /painfully/ hitting my head. Given I'm not over walking pace in a
cave and the roof tends to be low and irregular, I do bang my head a
lot, and a lot more than I would without it since it's bigger than my
head without it. But overall pain is less with it on, depsite more knocks.

And a helmet /can/ create problems, so it /can/ be dangerous. That
doesn't stop it mitigating a bruise, and it doesn't mean for every
bruise one mitigates it breaks a neck.

It's not a simplistic case of one or the other.

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/
 
On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:33:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote
<snip>
>> 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/
>
>Every time I see Peter's signature above I go into a rage. I can feel my
>blood pressure rise and my pulse quicken. More than anything in this world I
>want to whack him about the head for his effrontery. How dare he have a more
>prolix signature than I, when I am truly Great (besides being a Great Saint)
>and he is a nobody and a nothing.

How dare you call Peter Clinch a nothing? We (the perceptive among the
group) know him to be a Medical Physics IT Officer.


>
>I hereby challenge him to a duel to the death. I simply can't bear his
>stupid signature any longer. One of us has got to go. Let us do it on the
>banks of the Ohio. Vandeman can be my second.

Yes, please enter several of these 'duels to the death'!

As many as it takes.

Although the folks over at RBM would surely miss you.

Indiana Mike

Indiana Mike


>
>Why can't he have a modest and humble signature like mine!
>
>Regards,
>
>Mister Ed
>
 
On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:51:55 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>.... I never said* helmets save lives. They prevent or lessen the
>severity of some types of injuries.
>
>* May have thought and/or said so years ago. Today I think it's
>/conceivable/ that a helmet can prevent a fatal injury in certain highly
>specific conditions, but highly unlikely. Certainly not on any type of
>regular basis.
>
>B
>

Well I guess I could say a helmet saved *my* life. You see the only
time I ever wear one is while cycling, and one nurse told me that
being aerobically fit from my bikingactivity is likely the reason I
grew an alternate blood supply for the area where my heart was damaged
last October, allowing me to survive and recover from the major attack
I experienced last October.

Plus it helps against sunburn!

But I don't count on my foam hat for injury prevention. For that
purpose I concentrate on accident prevention.

And it does seem likely to me that the helmet could easily be a factor
in rotational injuries.

Indiana Mike
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

<snipped>

-heresy in the Church of the Helmetnots!-
>
> As it is, they [helmets] almost certainly lessen minor injuries, nobody's really
> denying that. But minor injuries are, well, /minor/.


And minimizing minor injuries is to be avoided?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> And minimizing minor injuries is to be avoided?

Not avoided, but OTOH there's no point going very far out of one's
way to avoid them. I've had a couple of minor burns in the kitchen
over the years, all of which could've been avoided with heatproof
gloves and suit. But I generally do my cooking in normal clothes,
like everyone else. Last time I hurt my head was in the kitchen
too, drew blood and all, banging it on the edge of an open cupboard
door. So to minimisie such risks and injuries, I should be wearing
a helmet? Really?

Trips and falls on sidewalks lead to plenty of head injuries every
year, so why doesn't it make sense to wear your lid there? Some of
these aren't minor, some are fatal, and a fall from low speed to
the ground with no vehicle involved is just what the cycle helmet
specification is for, so it should make even /more/ sense to wear
one as a pedestrian if you really follow through your logic.
Plenty of people have trips and falls with injuries that could be
lessened with helmets, just your reason for using one on a bike.
So whyt not on the sidewalk? It makes similar sense.

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/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

<All snipped>

You are a deceptive turd. You snip and twist and make ridiculous cases.
Screw you , asshole. Bye.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> You are a deceptive turd. You snip and twist and make ridiculous cases.
> Screw you , asshole. Bye.

I make cases that seem ridiculous but I construct them using /your/
logic: if it is worth wearing protective equipment to mitigate
relatively rare minor injuries on a bike, why not in the house or on the
sidewalk? Minor injuries are injuries regardless of where they happen.)
That they seem to be ridiculous is precisely *why* I abandoned my
previous belief in the sense of wearing a helmet for utility cycling
(every trip for over a decade), because I relaised I'd been kidding
myself with rationalising doublethink.

You are engaged in doublethink because you use completely different
standards and thought processes to deal with similar risks in different
environments. That you can't see you're doing that is your problem. It
used to be mine, too, not so much now though.

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/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote
> You are engaged in doublethink because you use completely different
> standards and thought processes to deal with similar risks in different
> environments.

Humans are notoriously poor judges of actual risk.

What's more dangerous a plane trip or the car trip to the airport?

The idea that biking presents unique significant inherent dangers
is a common one in many places. When people find out that I
regularly ride on streets and rural roads, they say,

"Isn't that dangerous?"
"Aren't you afraid you'll be killed?"

They say most accidents happen within half a mile of home.
Maybe we should all move someplace less dangerous! %^)

Jon Meinecke
 
"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[newsgroups restored]

> On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:33:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote
> <snip>
>>> 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/
>>
>>Every time I see Peter's signature above I go into a rage. I can feel my
>>blood pressure rise and my pulse quicken. More than anything in this world
>>I
>>want to whack him about the head for his effrontery. How dare he have a
>>more
>>prolix signature than I, when I am truly Great (besides being a Great
>>Saint)
>>and he is a nobody and a nothing.
>
> How dare you call Peter Clinch a nothing? We (the perceptive among the
> group) know him to be a Medical Physics IT Officer.

He has never yet told me what a Medical Physics IT Officer is and I
absolutely refuse to look it up.

But nonetheless, SOMETHING needs to be done about his signature. Why should
I have a heart attack or stroke just because he refuses to be a modest and
humble person like me.

>>I hereby challenge him to a duel to the death. I simply can't bear his
>>stupid signature any longer. One of us has got to go. Let us do it on the
>>banks of the Ohio. Vandeman can be my second.
>
> Yes, please enter several of these 'duels to the death'!
>
> As many as it takes.
>
> Although the folks over at RBM would surely miss you.

The folks at RBM do not yet know Ed Dolan the Great like the folks at ARBR
do. I will grow on them like a fungus over time.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...

> Given a choice (unfortunately many of us no longer have such a choice) of
> whether to wear a helmet while cycling, does it make a difference to the
> likelyhood of injury?

Of course.
 
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