Cooler Helmet?

[Mike Reed]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mike
> Reed ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > Miracle? Adding material to increase structural stability is
> > engineering, not theology. How does armor work? If we changed the term
> > "bicycle helmet" to "armor," then do you think they would work better?
> >
> > I woke up in the hospital one day following my ride home from work, and
> > found my helmet to be cracked and compressed. I was in the hospital for
> > a pneumothorax caused by my broken rib. My helmet had completely
> > smashed through the rear side window of the car that drove in front of
> > me. I believe the helmet saved me from some serious head injuries. Even
> > with the helmet, I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
> > prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
> > injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.
> >
> > But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.
>
> I trust you went out unhelmeted and repeated the experiment to test the
> validity of the mechanic's point of view?

See reply to GT next message above...

Oh, and neurologist != mechanic, as much as I respect mechanics.

-Mike

 

[Mark Hickey]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:59:00 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>>Funny - I'm the one who always wears a helmet, but you're the one
>>who's paranoid about riding in traffic. I suppose I could slow to a
>>walking pace every time I pass a line of cars (and do where there's a
>>chance one might do something dumb). In the case of my accident,
>>there wasn't much of a chance for any of the stopped cars to get in my
>>way - I was in a BICYCLE LANE, Frank. Six feet of clean, clearly
>>marked bicycle lane next to a very adequately wide auto lane.
>
>It's really strange to hear you promoting helmet use and at the same
>time taking issue with someone who pointed out serious operator error
>on your part. And calling him paranoid for saying he wouldn't do
>something that, to me also, doesn't seem prudent.

I don't see it as "serious operator error" to assume that a stopped
line of cars poses little threat to a bike moving in an adjacent lane.

>>Perhaps you slow to a walking pace when passing stopped cars in the
>>adjacent lane when you drive, Frank?
>
>Well, for sure drivers of cars tend to spot other cars better than
>they spot cyclists, so sad to say that when riding a bike around a lot
>of cars we actually have to be even more careful sometimes. I wish it
>wasn't that way, but it is. Or I guess we can just wear a helmet and
>mock other people like you do. Great.

Hmmmm. Do you consider stating that someone who was in a bike
accident "suicidal" NOT mocking? Or how about stating that a motor
vehicle that turns left across a traffic lane without looking isn't at
fault? Will I have to remind you later in other threads that you
don't believe that the driver is at fault in a situation like that?

>>The same thing could happen when riding with MOVING traffic
>
>It is FAR less likely with moving traffic.

Both have happened to me many, many times (cars turning left to "just
miss" or "just beat" the car I'm riding next to).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[41]

Mike Reed wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Mike Reed wrote:
> > > 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 f rame 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.
> >
> > You need to think that one through more thoroughly. We are not dealing
> > with two basic objects A and B here, we are dealing with A, B, and S,
> > where B is delicately floating inside S. You might ask yourself: why
> > are hard hats worn on construction sites so different in design from
> > bicycle helmets? They have no styrofoam padding inside, only a sort of
> > harness ("suspension"). Why not use it for bicycle helmets if the
> > situation is as you believe?
> >
> > Think of the 8lb battery falling 16 feet and hitting our poster S. here
> > square on the head, yet causing her hardly a hiccup. Since you are
> > confident of your ability in physics, why don't you do the calculations
> > and see what the impact velocity is. If you do so, you will find that
> > the speed substantially exceed s that for the Snell standard for the
> > impact of the headform with the ground. Coincidentally, 8lbs is also a
> > typical weight for a human head. Go take a look at a construction hard
> > hat and see how little to it there is. Why was it able to prote ct S.
> > from that high-speed impact, when if her head were dropped from that
> > height in a Snell test, even with that helmet worn on top of a bicycle
> > helmet, we could shall we say kiss her and her scrambled brain goodbye?
> > If the situation were as you described, there should be no difference,
> > because "Physics doesn't care what your f rame of reference is".
>
> Ugh, I'm talking about the same resultant kinetic energy for the same
> objects. A sign post hitting you with the same energy with which you
> hit a sign post, in the same location on your mellon, the helmet
> behaves the same.
>
> Nice story though.

This would be amazing if it were not Usenet. You are unable to explain
any of the facts I challenged you with. Though these blatantly do not
fit with your views, you dismiss any need to even think about them on
the basis of a term- in your hands it is just that, not a concept or a
law- from physics, even though you are obviously not trained in
physics. You speak of the effect on the helmet, as if that were what
mattered, instead of the effect on the brain. And to top it all off you
are rude.

 

[Joe Riel]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't see it as "serious operator error" to assume that a stopped
> line of cars poses little threat to a bike moving in an adjacent lane.

It's not the stopped cars that pose the threat. Occasionally gaps
form between the cars and a vehicle from the left bound lane may take
the opportunity to turn in front---the driver will never see you and
if there are large trucks or SUVs your vision is blocked. Or a car
moves into the line from the right, out of a driveway. Another danger
is that a motorist, annoyed at having to wait to make a right turn,
decides to use the open bike lane. My only collision with a car was
caused by that scenario; however, it wasn't much of a collision, more
of a side-swiping and I stayed upright. Passing a line of stopped
cars can be quite dangerous. Doing so at speed is an operator error.

--
Joe Riel

 

[Werehatrack]

On 27 Apr 2006 23:36:01 -0700, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>4. Get aspheric high-refraction index plastic lenses and well-fitting
>wire-framed glasses.

ISTR that this isn't going to help in the specific case.

>3. Learn to fall properly on your bicycle. This is done on a golf
>course.

Not around here. 24/7/365, golf course operators in the Houston area
take an *intensely* dim view of anyone being present who isn't
actively engaged in paying them for the privilege of thwacking a small
white[1] ball around. OTOH, there are empty soccer fields available
much of the time which will serve adequately. (Beware of sudden
influxes of soccer players, however; any empty field is subject to
being overrun without notice.)

Caveat: Any greenspace in the deep South may contain sandspurs.
Anyone who has lived here for any significant period of time (and has
been outdoors very much) is familiar with them. If you're not, you're
elsewhere, or you seldom go outside.

>2. Learn to ride properly on your bicycle. This is done on a golf
>course, in a parking lot, on a trainer, anywhere and everywhere.

I submit my direct observation that simple inexperience is the biggest
factor in this instance, and is being rapidly overcome.

>1. Flee Texas.

Reportedly attempted; fleeing Dallas for Houston was the practical
alternative.


[1] Okay, most of them will allow non-white balls, but the observed
results seem to indicate that they are not commonly encountered. I
have long held that the urge to play golf is a communicable mental
illness most often contracted from one's employer. "A good walk
ruined" seems the most polite description of the activity itself.
Your opinion may vary, of course.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > But the probabilities are far different. Should that not factor in
> > _somehow_?
>
> The fact that crashing is a good deal more likely on a
> knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a skinny-tired one over
> pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
>
> It's really not that complicated.

It's not as over-simple as your explanation. Einstein would chide you.

A one in ten-thousand risk does not normally get the same protection
that a one in twenty risk does, even when the consequences are
identical. Rational people _do_ take the likelihood of an event into
account, and they do it every day with dozens of risks.

If you're not doing that with this issue, you're not being rational.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Passing a line of stopped cars on the right at 20 mph sounds like
> >suicide to me. ...
>
> Funny - I'm the one who always wears a helmet, but you're the one
> who's paranoid about riding in traffic.

Not in the least! I got a long list of cities in which I've mixed
thoroughly with heavy traffic. In four or five different countries.
And dozens of states.

> I suppose I could slow to a
> walking pace every time I pass a line of cars (and do where there's a
> chance one might do something dumb).

Alternately, you could exercise more sophisticated judgement.

> In the case of my accident,
> there wasn't much of a chance for any of the stopped cars to get in my
> way - I was in a BICYCLE LANE, Frank. Six feet of clean, clearly
> marked bicycle lane next to a very adequately wide auto lane.
>
> Perhaps you slow to a walking pace when passing stopped cars in the
> adjacent lane when you drive, Frank?

I think what I do (in a car, on the motorcycle, on the bike) is vary my
sense of caution to fit the situation. And passing within a few feet a
line of vehicles at a relative speed of 20 mph is cause for _great_
caution, in my book. You've demonstrated why.

Personally, I would not have been at walking speed. But I probably
would have kept it way under 10 mph; I would have been careful to stay
out of the right side door zone (which you probably did too); and if I
approached a car-sized gap in the line opposite a driveway, I _would_
have slowed to 5mph or so, unless I could clearly see there was nobody
trying to enter that gap.

> My error was in not discerning a space through which a vehicle could
> turn left through the stopped cars, nor in seeing the vehicle in time.

Yes, and passing in a manner motorists aren't used to, at a high
relative speed. Think: How many times do you pass a line of cars at
20 mph relative speed in/on _any_ vehicle? That speed difference is
startling.

> The same thing could happen when riding with MOVING traffic...

Not nearly as likely. With moving traffic, the space between cars is
much, much greater, therefore your vision of oncoming traffic is much
less likely to be blocked. You can _see_ people waiting to turn in
front of you. You can catch their eye, have your hands on the brakes,
be ready for emergency maneuvers if they screw up.

> I suppose the only "non-suicidal" mode would be to slow to a walking
> pace all the time, just to be safe.

Alternately, you could take personal responsibility for your mistake
and learn from it.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> But to suggest to someone that they
> buy a bigger size than fits best for cooling is bad advice and
> irresponsible at best.

Do you have evidence that shows a larger helmet has significantly less
protection?

I've seen data suggesting that helmets tipped back to expose the
forehead (fairly common) offer significantly less protection. But I've
seen no evidence that helmet size, per se, makes a difference.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
> A lawyer would eat him alive if his or her client was injured on "Mike's
> Ride" while not wearing a helmet.

I tend to doubt that, although I am not a lawyer.

I've noted that the "release form" posted on the website of the League
of American Bicyclists for the League-sanctioned events, as supplied by
their insurance company, does not require helmets. It does not even
mention them.

Similarly, the information on how to organize a ride _recommends_, but
does not require, helmets.

And when I ran a League-sanctioned century (for 7 or 8 years) we did
not require helmets. We had no problems.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Bend to his will?!? He's LEADING a group ride -- most likely representing
> his business but even if not he's assuming some repsonsibility for the
> participants' well-being and safety.

Actually, I kinda like that. "Bend to his will." I feel like "Bob" in those
"natural enhancement" commercials. I have a more-lively step now. I feel
like I an conquer just about anything, as I bend people to my will. THE
WORLD IS MINE. ALL MINE!!!! :>)

> A lawyer would eat him alive if his or her client was injured on "Mike's
> Ride" while not wearing a helmet.

Possibly. Ironically, requiring a helmet is done partially for the exact
reasons some people think is a very bad thing. It's an indication that
someone knows they're engaging in a potentially-dangerous activity. Almost
like signing a waiver. As in "If you didn't think it could be dangerous, why
did you wear a helmet?"

But for today, who cares. I'm going to see how much "will bending" I can
accomplish. This is like The Wizard of Oz. I've had all this power, and just
never knew it... just had to click my heels three times.

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


"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Michael Press wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Press wrote:
>
>>>> By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
>>>> their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.
>
>>> Uh, no, it's just a requirement for rides I lead. I have no problem
>>> riding with helmetless cyclists if it's not my own ride.
>
>> I think you do have a problem. One of them is that you
>> exclude people. Not because they are anti-social, or rude,
>> or dangerous, or abrasive; but because they do not bend to
>> your will.
>
> Bend to his will?!? He's LEADING a group ride -- most likely representing
> his business but even if not he's assuming some repsonsibility for the
> participants' well-being and safety.
>
> A lawyer would eat him alive if his or her client was injured on "Mike's
> Ride" while not wearing a helmet.
>
> Someone DOES sound rude, anti-social and abrasive here: Michael, not
> Mike.
>
> BS
>

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:11:54 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Of course. I missed JFT's use of the word "chances" above, as it
>> did NOT accurately portray what I said to Greg (context was removed
>> by JFT, too).
>
> I don't see why things I write have to accurately portray what you
> write. I wasn't trying to deceive you or anyone -- I was pointing out
> that not talking about odds is, er, odd. The fact that you just
> skipped over that should not be laid at my feet but rather at yours --
> it's an example of the way people talk about helmets: not carefully
> enough.
>
> Sorry if that seems obnoxious, but I wasn't trying to fly something by
> you in some sort of trick.

John, I wrote a simple declarative statement about heads impacting with
rocks and curbs.

You then 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."

Only thing is I DID NOT "(relate) (anything) to /chances/ of (anything)".

I simply missed it the first time I replied to you. You either INCORRECTLY
interpreted what I wrote, or DISHONESTLY summarized it. I'll choose to
believe the former...for now.

Regardless of the odds, I choose to wear a helmet on both mountain and road
bike rides. Perhaps you don't. I don't think either choice is odd at all;
just different.

Bill S.

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> But the probabilities are far different. Should that not factor in
>>> _somehow_?

{I answered "Of course." But it disappeared.}

>> The fact that crashing is a good deal more likely on a
>> knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a skinny-tired one over
>> pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.

> It's not as over-simple as your explanation. Einstein would chide
> you.
>
> A one in ten-thousand risk does not normally get the same protection
> that a one in twenty risk does, even when the consequences are
> identical. Rational people _do_ take the likelihood of an event into
> account, and they do it every day with dozens of risks.
>
> If you're not doing that with this issue, you're not being rational.

Fine, Frank, I and millions of others am/aren't rational. (Sort of like you
snipping my answer "Of course." to your question. Einstein might chide YOU
for THAT.)

Fact is the speeds are quite a bit higher on road bikes -- especially on
downhills -- so the harsher consequences of crashing overcome the lesser
chances of it happening. IMO.

IT'S REALLY NOT THAT COMPLICATED, EINSTEIN.

Professor Irwin Corey (BS)

 

[Ed Pirrero]

41 wrote:
> And to top it all off you are rude.

The irony of usenet never ceases to entertain.

E.P.

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:59:00 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Funny - I'm the one who always wears a helmet, but you're the one
>> who's paranoid about riding in traffic. I suppose I could slow to a
>> walking pace every time I pass a line of cars (and do where there's a
>> chance one might do something dumb). In the case of my accident,
>> there wasn't much of a chance for any of the stopped cars to get in
>> my way - I was in a BICYCLE LANE, Frank. Six feet of clean, clearly
>> marked bicycle lane next to a very adequately wide auto lane.
>
> It's really strange to hear you promoting helmet use and at the same
> time taking issue with someone who pointed out serious operator error
> on your part. And calling him paranoid for saying he wouldn't do
> something that, to me also, doesn't seem prudent.
>
>>
>> Perhaps you slow to a walking pace when passing stopped cars in the
>> adjacent lane when you drive, Frank?
>
> Well, for sure drivers of cars tend to spot other cars better than
> they spot cyclists, so sad to say that when riding a bike around a lot
> of cars we actually have to be even more careful sometimes. I wish it
> wasn't that way, but it is. Or I guess we can just wear a helmet and
> mock other people like you do. Great.

Wow. You REALLY ARE a dishonest *****. Well done.

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> Do you consider stating that someone who was in a bike
> accident "suicidal" NOT mocking?

Mark, I figured you'd be mad at me. I'm sorry about that. But still,
I think what you did was pretty darn close to suicidal. I think others
should learn from it - and the lesson shouldn't be just "Always wear a
helmet!!!!"

I'm serious that I would _never_ do what you did at 20 mph. I would
never do it because I would judge the chance of that specific accident
- or a passenger jumping out, or a stopped car suddenly turning _right_
into a drive - would be too great.

> Or how about stating that a motor
> vehicle that turns left across a traffic lane without looking isn't at
> fault?

I did NOT state that. He was at fault, and he may have borne the
entire legal burden for the accident. But you should not have put
yourself in that position. It was a bad mistake on your part.

See http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter4a.htm and page
down to "Bike Lanes at Intersections." What John Allen is discussing
isn't precisely the same, but it should get the idea across.

Sorry. But there it is.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote (to JFT, not FG):

>> Do you consider stating that someone who was in a bike
>> accident "suicidal" NOT mocking?

> Mark, I figured you'd be mad at me. I'm sorry about that.

You'll notice, of course, that Mark didn't take offense (personal at least)
to you directly, but rather to JFT's unfair and dishonest attack. You were
just the backdrop, Frank

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > But to suggest to someone that they
> > buy a bigger size than fits best for cooling is bad advice and
> > irresponsible at best.
>
> Do you have evidence that shows a larger helmet has significantly less
> protection?
>
> I've seen data suggesting that helmets tipped back to expose the
> forehead (fairly common) offer significantly less protection. But I've
> seen no evidence that helmet size, per se, makes a difference.

Yup. I tried on a bunch of helmets and the larger ones tipped back
much easier and exposed my forehead which , as you point out, is
dangerous. Produced my own evidence which I did not need and you can
too but it wouldn't further your trolling.

dkl

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> But to suggest to someone that they
>>> buy a bigger size than fits best for cooling is bad advice and
>>> irresponsible at best.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that shows a larger helmet has significantly
>> less protection?
>>
>> I've seen data suggesting that helmets tipped back to expose the
>> forehead (fairly common) offer significantly less protection. But
>> I've seen no evidence that helmet size, per se, makes a difference.
>
> Yup. I tried on a bunch of helmets and the larger ones tipped back
> much easier and exposed my forehead which , as you point out, is
> dangerous. Produced my own evidence which I did not need and you
> can too but it wouldn't further your trolling.

Einstei--- er, Frank has slipped up more than a couple of times in the last
month or so, tacitly ADMITTING THAT HELMETS OFFER PROTECTION within his
otherwise consistently anti-helmet comments.

Even here, he mentions incorrect fit offering "significantly less
protection" -- implying, of course, that there in fact IS "significant
protection" to be had by /correct/ fit!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (evil doctor mad laugh)... BS

 

[G.T.]

Joe Riel wrote:
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>I don't see it as "serious operator error" to assume that a stopped
>>line of cars poses little threat to a bike moving in an adjacent lane.
>
>
> It's not the stopped cars that pose the threat. Occasionally gaps
> form between the cars and a vehicle from the left bound lane may take
> the opportunity to turn in front---the driver will never see you and
> if there are large trucks or SUVs your vision is blocked. Or a car
> moves into the line from the right, out of a driveway. Another danger
> is that a motorist, annoyed at having to wait to make a right turn,
> decides to use the open bike lane. My only collision with a car was
> caused by that scenario; however, it wasn't much of a collision, more
> of a side-swiping and I stayed upright. Passing a line of stopped
> cars can be quite dangerous. Doing so at speed is an operator error.
>

I've witnessed similar accidents on the freeway where the main lanes are
stopped and the car pool lane is flying. Someone in the stopped #1 lane
decides to suddenly enter the carpool lane not seeing the carpooler
going 70mph. Seems to me to be common sense to reduce the difference in
speed between you and the people you're flying by.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
> Einstei--- er, Frank has slipped up more than a couple of times in the last
> month or so, tacitly ADMITTING THAT HELMETS OFFER PROTECTION within his
> otherwise consistently anti-helmet comments.

No slipup at all. It's always been obvious that helmets offer _some_
protection. I've never said otherwise.

> Even here, he mentions incorrect fit offering "significantly less
> protection" -- implying, of course, that there in fact IS "significant
> protection" to be had by /correct/ fit!

Sorry, BS, my "significantly less" was a percentage-wise difference.
For example, the protection against scratches and scrapes to the
forehead is significantly less if the helmet is tilted back away from
the forehead.

- Frank Krygowski