Cooler Helmet?

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities are cyclists.
> >
> > What's that got to do with anything? Fewer than 1% of the people in
> > motion on the surface of the planet at this moment are on bicycles.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Well, for one thing, it's common for helmet promotions to tout supposed
> benefits to society ("Bicycling head injuries cost the country $480
> trillion dollars per month" or such nonsense). Obviously, cycling's
> contribution to any total head injury costs are negligible. You could
> save roughly 50 times more of society's money by promoting car helmets,
> for example.
>
> For another thing, helmet promoters stock in trade is to tell of the
> tragedies that occur because of riding without a styrofoam hat. But
> such bicycling tragedies are, indeed, extremely rare. They are
> outnumbered 100 to one by other equally tragic head injuries from other
> sources.
>
> But the helmet promoters never mention that. Even if they are people
> who supposedly love cycling, they are willing to make cycling sound
> uniquely dangerous in order to push their views.
>
> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

Every time this comes up it always focuses on the supposedly
fatal/near-fatal head injuries and not the injuries that helmets really
help prevent -- scalp injuries and certain types of skull
fracture/focal brain injury.

I am skeptical of the "helmet saved my life" stories, but I am
absolutely certain that at least twice in the last year and a half, a
helmet saved my scalp (regrettably not my face, which got lots of tiny
stitches from a plastic surgeon) -- and MAY HAVE avoided a focal brain
injury. Judging by the indentation in my helmet, it is at least
possible that I avoided a focal injury -- as opposed to the unavoidable
diffuse injury caused by rotation/deceleration. These accidents
involved bad weather and road conditions at night and not scary cars.

Bicycle can be dangerous sometimes, particularly if you ride off road
or ride in dangerous conditions e.g, Cat 5 criteriums. -- Jay Beattie

 

[Mike Reed]

41 wrote:
> To put it more directly: you will die from brain deceleration long
> before your skull is damaged in any impact with a hard object where it
> is you that moves and not the object.

Physics doesn't care what your frame of reference is. Whether you ride
into a sign post or are whacked across the head with one doesn't change
the way the helmet behaves.

I just don't understand what part of logic is missing that prevents
people from seeing how a helmet can help if you hit your head. It
doesn't solve every problem, and I'm not claiming it does, but it
helps.

-Mike

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> In the end, I always viewed the helmet as a prophylactic measure, and
> have saved at least some skin and hard knocks in other "events"
> (mostly on MTBs). In this case, my "paranoia" paid off in a very real
> way. YMMV.
>
> Mark Hickey

Mark: I've "used" a bicycle helmet twice in my life... in neither case did
it prevent me from death or extremely-serious injury; in both cases the
helmet was what was skidding along the pavement instead of the side of my
head. Not wearing a helmet would have been messy, somewhat painful, and
probably a less-impressive crash (have you noticed how much noise comes from
a helmet sliding on the ground?).

I don't think my experiences are rare either. We had a crash on one of our
regular Tuesday/Thursday-morning rides a few weeks ago... a guy went down in
one of the corners on the main descent... exact same thing. Went sliding
along on the side of the helmet. Wouldn't have died, probably wouldn't have
been seriously injured, but would have been bloody and not fun. As it was he
just picked himself up and continued the ride (just as I did the two times I
"used" my helmet).

I'm just curious how often there are accidents of the type I'm describing; I
suspect they don't show up very often in the statistics.

On the other hand, I am absolutely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for
kids, even though I'd never ride a bike without one. Why? Because I do agree
that they discourage kids from riding, which is the worse of the two evils.
Plus the laws aren't enforced very well, teaching kids it's OK to
selectively choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>That's why even dramatic examples aren't quite as convincing
>>as you'd expect them to be. Anyone looking at Mark's
>>pictures and description of his accident can certainly be
>>excused for assuming that his helmet saved him and that
>>helmets must therefore have a widespread and similar effect.
>
> I'm certainly not suggesting that there's any "widespread and similar"
> effect. I don't wear a helmet because I think there is a significant
> chance I'll "need it" on any given ride, but just because it's an easy
> and prudent way to protect my head more than it would be by just my
> hair.
>
> I certainly didn't MEAN to test the effectiveness of my helmet the way
> I did (if I had it to do over, I'd just stop before hitting the truck
> and ignore this thread).
>
> But in my particular case, I think it's quite reasonable to say that
> the helmet did help. The damage is actually worse than shown in the
> photos, but it's really quite crushed over a large area across the
> top. Keep in mind that the width of the mirror mount I hit is around
> 1/4", and that the impact would have been focused on whatever the
> interface between a 1/4" steel bar and my pointy head is. I have to
> believe that even my legendarily hard head isn't up to resisting that
> kind of impact.
>
> The lingering injuries to my neck would certainly have been worse had
> the deceleration been that much more instantaneous if I didn't have
> that inch of styrofoam between me and the Ford, though I don't have a
> clue how to estimate how much worse.
>
> In the end, I always viewed the helmet as a prophylactic measure, and
> have saved at least some skin and hard knocks in other "events"
> (mostly on MTBs). In this case, my "paranoia" paid off in a very real
> way. YMMV.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Samatha]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 20:58:36 -0700,
>>[email protected] wrote:
>> >Samatha wrote:
> >> If need be, I'll locate more foam and superglue some strips in to get some air
> >> flow.
> >
> >Best be careful! Things like superglue can attack the foam.
> >
> >It wouldn't be a problem, except it causes all the magic to leak out
> >the helmet. Then it becomes just a hat.
>
> Err, I think she can handle the chemistry. Something to do with it
> being part of the job description.

Heh. Werehatrack happens to know I make my living by working as a
chemical engineer.

> (Actually, cyanoacrylates shouldn't attack the foam, but they might
> not fully cure, which could lead to a situation with its own set of
> nasty potential surprises.)

Actually, depending on the type of superglue, one can achieve, er,
leaking the magic out, or improper cure, or a good bond. I'll make sure
to do a proper pre-test on a separate bit of foam, and spot test the
helmet's own foam someplace the least adverse I can find before I
actually do remodel it a bit. My head isn't perfectly flattened-oval
(as the helmet is) so I can also adapt it to fit a big more snugly in
the process.

As for the protective qualities of a helmet Saving Your Life, or Just
Preventing a Scrape, I have no idea. My personal choice is to wear one,
even at the cost of losing my just-now-getting-long hair, because:

1) I'm a beginning rider, prone to wobbling, ditching into curbs when
startled, and just plain losing control and whoop! down on the ground.
Although I've had martial arts training in how to fall best, it doesn't
always work out real well with the bike involved. So, perhaps the
rider's skill (or lack of same) should be taken into account?

2) Even if I cut it shorter, my hair tends to blow in my face. I hate
that, so I'd have to at least wear a do-wrap or some sort. If I have to
cover my head, might as well strap on some protection at the same time,
I figure.

3) I have lousy eyesight - big, thick glasses. I tend to run into
overhanging objects before realizing I'm in trouble - helmet saves me
some probably-not-life-threatening-but-really-embarrassing
bumps/knockdowns off my bike. Plus, the whole tree-branch thing is
worth noting for a city/urban commuter like myself.

4) Weird, dumb accidents sometimes just happen. On the job, I was once
saved from a very hard blow to the top of my head by having my hardhat
on; someone 16 feet above lost an eight-pound battery and it feel
squarely in the center of the top of my head. With the hardhat, it was
enough of a blow to knock me down, off my feet, slightly stunned.
Without the hardhat? Maybe not dead, but I do think I might have been
VERY sore or injured. Sure these aren't likely, but I don't care about
generalities and statistics, I care about keeping my own sweaty noggin'
in one functioning - and not sore! - piece.

5) That darn bike lane puts traffic WAY too close for me to have a
cozy, warm feeling. Lots of Texans favor honking huge trucks, with even
huger mirrors extending some distance from the vehicle body. There
isn't much I can effectively do about a
side-to-the-body-and-bike-swipe, or a mirror thwacking my shoulder, but
if one happens to be at a height to conk my head from behind, I'd
rather have the helmet on than depend on my hair for a cushion.

6) As an engineer, I have had some education in the principles of
inertia. The fact that a two to four -ton- vehicle may encounter me
directly - whatever our mutual vectors! - on a mere 25 pound (if that)
vehicle fills me with the desire to get every little advantage and
safety benefit I possibly can, on the hopefully remote chance a
collision might occur. Or I fell over for no better reason than my own
clumsiness, falling so out-of-balance as to land badly and thwack on my
own head of the pavement (sadly, a far more likely risk).

It is a personal decision, based on my experience, weighting of the
risks, and preferences. As such a raw beginner, I wouldn't like to
oppose veterans. There is, after all, little risk of someone dropping a
battery on my head whilst cycling (although being struck by bits
sticking out of vehicles seems possible, just from my observations thus
far), so my experience is not so global as I would presume to say if
helmets are better for everyone.

I do think wearing is better for me than not, even with the broiling of
the brain.

Sam

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
> Every time this comes up it always focuses on the supposedly
> fatal/near-fatal head injuries and not the injuries that helmets really
> help prevent -- scalp injuries and certain types of skull
> fracture/focal brain injury.
>
> I am skeptical of the "helmet saved my life" stories, but I am
> absolutely certain that at least twice in the last year and a half, a
> helmet saved my scalp (regrettably not my face, which got lots of tiny
> stitches from a plastic surgeon) -- and MAY HAVE avoided a focal brain
> injury. Judging by the indentation in my helmet, it is at least
> possible that I avoided a focal injury -- as opposed to the unavoidable
> diffuse injury caused by rotation/deceleration. These accidents
> involved bad weather and road conditions at night and not scary cars.
>
> Bicycle can be dangerous sometimes, particularly if you ride off road
> or ride in dangerous conditions e.g, Cat 5 criteriums. -- Jay Beattie

I'll agree, there are ways in which bicycling can be dangerous.

The same is true of all activities, I imagine. Jogging, if you run on
rocky trails on the sides of mountains. Swimming, if it's in riptide
waters. Driving, if you do it as it's shown in the SUV commercials.

And, FWIW, I don't believe helmets have _zero_ protective benefit.
There is a range of crashes in which helmets will do at least some
good. (However, judging from the available data, that range must be
small.)

Still, I have no problem with recommending bike helmets for criteriums,
or for aggressive mountain biking. Although I think it's smarter to
just avoid those activities, rather than to add serious risk to your
life, then try to subtract some of it with a helmet.

But the typical helmet propaganda is different. It runs something like
"You should never even leave your driveway without a helmet. Helmets
prevent almost all head injuries and fatalities." That's overhyped
nonsense.

And the concomitant hype, "... because bicycling is dangerous enough to
kill you ..." is also nonsense, for any realistic cross section of
cyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby heads) garden
>and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on a very hard rock. I got
>up and finished the ride.
>
>I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily, but I'm
>pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussion or perhaps even a
>fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I would NOT have gotten up and
>completed the ride; best case might have been a very slow walk back to the
>trail head and a ride home (or to the hospital) from one of the guys with
>me.
>
>It's really not that complicated.

It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
of accidents on a normal road ride.

JT

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

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby heads)
>> garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on a very
>> hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
>>
>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussion or
>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I would
>> NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might have been
>> a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home (or to the
>> hospital) from one of the guys with me.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.
>
> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
> riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
> of accidents on a normal road ride.

The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not identical.

It's really not that complicated.

B.S.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:49:04 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby heads)
>>> garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on a very
>>> hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
>>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussion or
>>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I would
>>> NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might have been
>>> a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home (or to the
>>> hospital) from one of the guys with me.
>>>
>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>
>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
>> riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
>> of accidents on a normal road ride.
>
>The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not identical.
>
>It's really not that complicated.

It's complicated enough that you miss the word "chances" in my
statement. I don't ride my bike constantly hitting curbs. Do you?

JT

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

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:

> - Frank Krygowski - who suffered only one 3 mph moving fall on-road
> since 1972. (Scraped my knee.)

Your personal experience it is not representative of the average person
on this NG -- or the grade school kids who are subject to the MHLs in
the United States. I am receptive to arguments about the
usefulness/uselessness of helmets, but a tag line that you have had one
crash in 35 years does not give me confidence in your grasp of the
risks encountered by the rest of us -- and particularly those who
engage in off road riding that involves a lot of skinned knees. I am
sure that you would dismiss off road riding as unnecessary risk-taking
just like racing a criterium. Maybe it is, but don't try selling
abstinence on this NG. Try alt.couch.potato for that one. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Jay Beattie]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

>> On the other hand, I am absolutely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for
> kids, even though I'd never ride a bike without one. Why? Because I do agree
> that they discourage kids from riding, which is the worse of the two evils.
> Plus the laws aren't enforced very well, teaching kids it's OK to
> selectively choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.

Where are the kids who are not riding because they have to wear a
helmet? My front room is frequently awash in grade school kids, almost
all of whom wear football helmets, ski helmets, lacrosse helmets,
bicycle helmets, etc. I have never, ever heard one of them say "I'm
not going to ride my bike because I have to wear a helmet." The reason
these kids do not ride is because their high-strung mothers shuttle
them everywhere in the Canyonero. Believe me, when I was a kid, having
to wear a helmet would have meant nothing because I still would have
had to ride across town to get to my friend Pat's house, My mom sure
the hell was not going to give me a ride there -- or to school, or the
store or anywhere. I had to do it, and I would have done it with a
helmet.

For example, my son's ski helmet is three times heavier than his bike
helmet, and he never complains about wearing it because he really,
really likes to ski. He would wear two helmets to go skiing. Getting
him on a bike is like pulling teeth, helmet or no helmet. It's work,
and he really does not have to do it. Maybe the Austrailian -- or is it
New Zeland -- kids were scared off their bikes by helmets, but in
America, it is pure laziness, IMO. I think the latest gas crisis may
force more kids on to their bikes, assuming the mothers can buck-up on
Vallium and utter those important words "ride your bike; I'm not
driving you to school in the [Expedition, Navigator, Suburban,
Hummer]."-- Jay Beattie.

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:49:04 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby
>>>> heads) garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on
>>>> a very hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
>>>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussio
>>>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I
>>>> would NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might
>>>> have been a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home
>>>> (or to the hospital) from one of the guys with me.
>>>>
>>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>>
>>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about
>>> accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that
>>> to chances of accidents on a normal road ride.
>>
>> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not
>> identical.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.
>
> It's complicated enough that you miss the word "chances" in my
> statement. I don't ride my bike constantly hitting curbs. Do you?

Well, you're right that I missed your mischaracterization of my comment to
Greg (not surprising since you completely removed its context). I was NOT
"talking about accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and
relating that
to /chances/ of accidents on a normal road ride" as you claimed. (Italic
added, since I wasn't talking about chances or likelihoods at all.)

Without bothering to cut & paste, Greg said something about it being
impossible for a helmet to prevent a "major brain injury". Period. He
didn't specify road/mountain.

It's really not that complicated.

BS (no, really)

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Apr 2006 17:49:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> On the other hand, I am absolutely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for
>> kids, even though I'd never ride a bike without one. Why? Because I do agree
>> that they discourage kids from riding, which is the worse of the two evils.
>> Plus the laws aren't enforced very well, teaching kids it's OK to
>> selectively choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.
>
>Where are the kids who are not riding because they have to wear a
>helmet? My front room is frequently awash in grade school kids, almost
>all of whom wear football helmets, ski helmets, lacrosse helmets,
>bicycle helmets, etc. I have never, ever heard one of them say "I'm
>not going to ride my bike because I have to wear a helmet." The reason
>these kids do not ride is because their high-strung mothers shuttle
>them everywhere in the Canyonero. Believe me, when I was a kid, having
>to wear a helmet would have meant nothing because I still would have
>had to ride across town to get to my friend Pat's house, My mom sure
>the hell was not going to give me a ride there -- or to school, or the
>store or anywhere. I had to do it, and I would have done it with a
>helmet.
>
>For example, my son's ski helmet is three times heavier than his bike
>helmet, and he never complains about wearing it because he really,
>really likes to ski. He would wear two helmets to go skiing. Getting
>him on a bike is like pulling teeth, helmet or no helmet. It's work,
>and he really does not have to do it. Maybe the Austrailian -- or is it
>New Zeland -- kids were scared off their bikes by helmets, but in
>America, it is pure laziness, IMO. I think the latest gas crisis may
>force more kids on to their bikes, assuming the mothers can buck-up on
>Vallium and utter those important words "ride your bike; I'm not
>driving you to school in the [Expedition, Navigator, Suburban,
>Hummer]."-- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Er, not all grade-school children in the U.S. are fortunate
enough to be awash in football, skiing, lacrosse, and
bicycle equipment.

In fact, many of them belong to families that do not own
large SUV's with mothers available to chaffeur them.

A few (or so I've heard) even grow up in single-parent
households that lack high-speed internet connections.

Not all children have successful lawyers for parents.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

P.S. Unbelievably, some children remain ignorant of the fine
points of the debate over Shimano versus Campagnolo
equipment, but I attribute that to willful ignorance and the
decline in public education, not lack of income.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:58:00 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:49:04 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby
>>>>> heads) garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on
>>>>> a very hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
>>>>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussio
>>>>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I
>>>>> would NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might
>>>>> have been a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home
>>>>> (or to the hospital) from one of the guys with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>>>
>>>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about
>>>> accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that
>>>> to chances of accidents on a normal road ride.
>>>
>>> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not
>>> identical.
>>>
>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>
>> It's complicated enough that you miss the word "chances" in my
>> statement. I don't ride my bike constantly hitting curbs. Do you?
>
>Well, you're right that I missed your mischaracterization of my comment to
>Greg (not surprising since you completely removed its context). I was NOT
>"talking about accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and
>relating that
>to /chances/ of accidents on a normal road ride" as you claimed. (Italic
>added, since I wasn't talking about chances or likelihoods at all.)

>Without bothering to cut & paste, Greg said something about it being
>impossible for a helmet to prevent a "major brain injury". Period. He
>didn't specify road/mountain.
>
>It's really not that complicated.

It is because you're talking about a fact that doesn't have meaning
without some kind of context.

It's like 41. Or ants. Or every Tuesday.

JT

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

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:58:00 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:49:04 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby
>>>>>> heads) garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on
>>>>>> a very hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
>>>>>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussio
>>>>>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I
>>>>>> would NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might
>>>>>> have been a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home
>>>>>> (or to the hospital) from one of the guys with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about
>>>>> accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating
>>>>> that to chances of accidents on a normal road ride.
>>>>
>>>> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not
>>>> identical.
>>>>
>>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>>
>>> It's complicated enough that you miss the word "chances" in my
>>> statement. I don't ride my bike constantly hitting curbs. Do you?
>>
>> Well, you're right that I missed your mischaracterization of my
>> comment to Greg (not surprising since you completely removed its
>> context). I was NOT "talking about accidents riding a mountain
>> bike in rocky terrain and relating that
>> to /chances/ of accidents on a normal road ride" as you claimed.
>> (Italic added, since I wasn't talking about chances or likelihoods
>> at all.)
>
>> Without bothering to cut & paste, Greg said something about it being
>> impossible for a helmet to prevent a "major brain injury". Period.
>> He didn't specify road/mountain.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.
>
> It is because you're talking about a fact that doesn't have meaning
> without some kind of context.
>
> It's like 41. Or ants. Or every Tuesday.

I suppose 41 ants /could/ hit their heads on a curb this Tuesday, but I
don't think helmets come that small.

Whatever.

BS

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:58:00 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:49:04 GMT, "Sorni"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:40 GMT, "Sorni"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Years ago on a local mtb ride, I got bouncing in a rock (baby
> >>>>>> heads) garden and did a spectacular endo. Banged my head HARD on
> >>>>>> a very hard rock. I got up and finished the ride.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not saying I would have had "major brain injury" necessarily,
> >>>>>> but I'm pretty damned sure I would have had a serious concussio
> >>>>>> perhaps even a fractured skull. I'm absolutely certain that I
> >>>>>> would NOT have gotten up and completed the ride; best case might
> >>>>>> have been a very slow walk back to the trail head and a ride home
> >>>>>> (or to the hospital) from one of the guys with me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's really not that complicated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about
> >>>>> accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating
> >>>>> that to chances of accidents on a normal road ride.
> >>>>
> >>>> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not
> >>>> identical.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's really not that complicated.
> >>>
> >>> It's complicated enough that you miss the word "chances" in my
> >>> statement. I don't ride my bike constantly hitting curbs. Do you?
> >>
> >> Well, you're right that I missed your mischaracterization of my
> >> comment to Greg (not surprising since you completely removed its
> >> context). I was NOT "talking about accidents riding a mountain
> >> bike in rocky terrain and relating that
> >> to /chances/ of accidents on a normal road ride" as you claimed.
> >> (Italic added, since I wasn't talking about chances or likelihoods
> >> at all.)
> >
> >> Without bothering to cut & paste, Greg said something about it being
> >> impossible for a helmet to prevent a "major brain injury". Period.
> >> He didn't specify road/mountain.
> >>
> >> It's really not that complicated.
> >
> > It is because you're talking about a fact that doesn't have meaning
> > without some kind of context.
> >
> > It's like 41. Or ants. Or every Tuesday.
>
> I suppose 41 ants /could/ hit their heads on a curb this Tuesday, but I
> don't think helmets come that small.
>

LOL!!!!


> Whatever.
>

My feelings, exactly.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> >
> > It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
> > riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
> > of accidents on a normal road ride.
>
> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not identical.

But the probabilities are far different. Should that not factor in
_somehow_?

> It's really not that complicated.

"Explanations should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler." -
Albert Einstein

[Disclaimer: That one is from memory, but I'm sure it's close.]

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > - Frank Krygowski - who suffered only one 3 mph moving fall on-road
> > since 1972. (Scraped my knee.)
>
> Your personal experience it is not representative of the average person
> on this NG -- or the grade school kids who are subject to the MHLs in
> the United States. I am receptive to arguments about the
> usefulness/uselessness of helmets, but a tag line that you have had one
> crash in 35 years does not give me confidence in your grasp of the
> risks encountered by the rest of us -- and particularly those who
> engage in off road riding that involves a lot of skinned knees.

Once again, I have no trouble recommending helmets for those who engage
in mountain biking that pushes the limits of their skills.

I don't do many miles on the mountain bike these days. I just don't
enjoy it as much as road riding. But even in my mountain biking days,
I never, not once, needed a helmet. I sometimes wore one, because I
sometimes took risks that made it seem prudent. Still, despite numerous
falls, my head never touched the ground (or the rocks, trees, etc.)

But at some point, I decided risking broken bones and torn ligaments
wasn't smart, even if my head were perfectly protected. YMMV,
especially while you're still young enough to be "bulletproof."

I recall one group mountain bike ride, where two of us (out of maybe
10) were unhelmeted. It was not very extreme, we rode the same climbs
and descents and tricky single tracks. But at a certain point, the
other 8 decided to go for "big air." Two of us decided it was stupid -
and watched as one of the helmeted crew broke his collarbone. No
thanks.

> I am
> sure that you would dismiss off road riding as unnecessary risk-taking
> just like racing a criterium.

Not all of it, certainly. It's entirely possible to ride single track
and do it sanely.

> Maybe it is, but don't try selling
> abstinence on this NG. Try alt.couch.potato for that one.

Sorry, but I'll never hang out there. I'm a bike commuter,
long-distance tourist, utility rider, day rider, etc. etc.

I don't abstain from cycling. I abstain from riding stupidly, like
"big air."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Where are the kids who are not riding because they have to wear a
> helmet?

?? What an odd question!

For what it's worth, there's a couple in our bike club who were adamant
about the issue. They told their 14 year old daughter that she was
absolutely not allowed to ride without a helmet.

She said "Fine." She stopped riding. Totally. She's now an adult,
and has never ridden a bike since.

The fact that you're not personally aware of such kids certainly
doesn't prove they don't exist!

> Maybe the Austrailian -- or is it
> New Zeland -- kids were scared off their bikes by helmets, but in
> America, it is pure laziness, IMO.

That may be your opinion, but it ignores a lot. For example: Many
people obviously don't like helmets. "Obviously," because they don't
wear them out of personal choice. Helmet proponents don't try to hide
the fact that it takes laws to make most people wear them. And there's
very good data about drops in cycling when such laws are instituted and
enforced.

So how can you really believe it's "pure laziness"? If a person rides
when he has the choice but stops when the choice is removed, it's not
laziness that stops him.

Two obvious factors are: 1) Helmets are disliked, for a variety of
reasons; and 2) helmet promotion "dangerizes" cycling, which scares
people off cycling.

> I think the latest gas crisis may
> force more kids on to their bikes, assuming the mothers can buck-up on
> Vallium and utter those important words "ride your bike; I'm not
> driving you to school in the [Expedition, Navigator, Suburban,
> Hummer]."

Very doubtful. The helmet promoters have convinced the mothers that
being on two wheels without a plastic hat is certain death. Has that
done any good for cycling , or for society?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Two obvious factors are: 1) Helmets are disliked, for a variety of
> reasons; and 2) helmet promotion "dangerizes" cycling, which scares
> people off cycling.

Frank: I agree with the first point; it doesn't take much, for example, for
girls to get concerned about what a helmet is going to do to their hair.
Some guys, too, but I'd say on the hair issue it's mostly girls. Boys? They
think it's cooler to ride with the helmet hanging from the handlebar;
cooler, in fact, that no helmet at all. And it's just not as convenient as
grabbing your bike and taking off (although it's difficult to believe that
leaving your helmet with your bike should be that much of an impediment).

On the second point, yes, helmets might "dangerize" cycling to some extent,
but as I pointed out in a another post, we have, in fact, implemented a vast
array of different mechanisms to make auto travel less dangerous, and very
few would currently argue that seat belts and air bags don't, in fact, save
lives and reduce serious injury. And the logic goes, if we can make cars
safer, why not bikes? There are parallels... before seat belts & air bags,
cars were most definitely more dangerous than they are today, but not so
dangerous that people wouldn't use them. Accepting a certain amount of
danger in cycling is little different, with or without helmets.

In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at the
same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose not
to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not more
than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> Where are the kids who are not riding because they have to wear a
>> helmet?
>
> ?? What an odd question!
>
> For what it's worth, there's a couple in our bike club who were adamant
> about the issue. They told their 14 year old daughter that she was
> absolutely not allowed to ride without a helmet.
>
> She said "Fine." She stopped riding. Totally. She's now an adult,
> and has never ridden a bike since.
>
> The fact that you're not personally aware of such kids certainly
> doesn't prove they don't exist!
>
>> Maybe the Austrailian -- or is it
>> New Zeland -- kids were scared off their bikes by helmets, but in
>> America, it is pure laziness, IMO.
>
> That may be your opinion, but it ignores a lot. For example: Many
> people obviously don't like helmets. "Obviously," because they don't
> wear them out of personal choice. Helmet proponents don't try to hide
> the fact that it takes laws to make most people wear them. And there's
> very good data about drops in cycling when such laws are instituted and
> enforced.
>
> So how can you really believe it's "pure laziness"? If a person rides
> when he has the choice but stops when the choice is removed, it's not
> laziness that stops him.
>
> Two obvious factors are: 1) Helmets are disliked, for a variety of
> reasons; and 2) helmet promotion "dangerizes" cycling, which scares
> people off cycling.
>
>> I think the latest gas crisis may
>> force more kids on to their bikes, assuming the mothers can buck-up on
>> Vallium and utter those important words "ride your bike; I'm not
>> driving you to school in the [Expedition, Navigator, Suburban,
>> Hummer]."
>
> Very doubtful. The helmet promoters have convinced the mothers that
> being on two wheels without a plastic hat is certain death. Has that
> done any good for cycling , or for society?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at the
> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose not
> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not more
> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).

That's interesting.

FWIW, there was a time I strongly believed in helmets. That was back
before I got curious enough to start reading all the research papers
and looking at actual data.

Anyway, back in those days, the first night ride I led for my club, I
said "helmets mandatory," thinking "well, it's a more risky ride." And
one of the club's best riders showed up without one. He normally rode
without one, and said he would have brought one because I asked, but he
just forgot.

I was faced with a little dilemma. What to do? Tell him he couldn't
ride with us? That would have been just silly - the roads are public,
I had no legal authority, and I would have felt foolish even trying.
It took me about 0.5 seconds to decide my helmet requirement was just
wrong. That was the last time I ever suggested such a thing.

I do know a guy who has said nobody can ride with him without a helmet.
Despite being an otherwise nice guy, he's also lectured me publicly
and rather impolitely about my riding without one (although my riding
experience far exceeds his). Even though I like him pretty well I
simply refuse to ride with him.

- Frank Krygowski