Cooler Helmet?

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:56 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:44:38 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> Mike Reed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a good point, but let's not forget that forward motion is
>>>>>> only one component of melon velocity in a bike crash. If you
>>>>>> collapsed from a standstill, you could still sustain a critical
>>>>>> injury just from the acceleration of gravity.
>>>>
>>>>> Need I observe that such a thing could happen any time you are
>>>>> running? Walking? Standing around?
>>>>
>>>> Most people are at least a little more likely to lose their balance
>>>> on a bike (whether through clumsiness, carelessness or just plain
>>>> bad luck with an obstacle or blowout) than when perched upon two
>>>> big slabs of feet meat.
>>>>
>>>> Percentages.
>>>>
>>>> BS
>>>
>>> Dear Bill,
>>>
>>> Actually, deaths from pedestrian falls are far more common
>>> than bicycle deaths, partly because of the much larger
>>> number of pedestrians, partly because of the greater amount
>>> of time that we spend on our hind legs instead of two
>>> wheels, and partly because far more elderly folk prone to
>>> dying from falling accidents are walkers instead of
>>> bicyclists.
>>>
>>> Browse down in the link below to the "TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL
>>> DEATHS" for USA 2002, and you'll find that #1 was motor
>>> vehicle accidents at 44.3%, #2 was falls at 17.8%, and down
>>> at #7 was other land transport at 1.5%, presumably including
>>> bicycles as well as horses, skateboards, and rickshaws.
>>>
>>> http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
>>>
>>> Chee--well, that's not quite appropriate, is it?
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>> Dear Carl,
>>
>> Good to know you haven't changed!
>>
>> I still maintain that MY chances of falling in a manner that would
>> cause me to hit my head on a hard and quite possibly sharp object
>> are much greater when I'm suspended 4+ feet off the ground on a
>> fast-moving thin-framed skinny-tired vehicle (controlled by...ME!)
>> than when I'm JWA or going down stairs or driving or whatever.
>> Therefore, I wear a helmet when engaging in the former activity and
>> don't when I'm not.
>>
>> YMMVWV.
>>
>> Bill S.
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Whether we're walking or riding a traditional diamond frame
> bicycle, our heads are "suspended" at roughly the same
> height.
>
> In fact, if we're riding with our hands on the drops, our
> heads are probably lower.
>
> We walk and drive without helmets because it never occurs to
> us to do otherwise, not because of any actual reasoning
> concerning the extremely small chances of a serious
> accident.
>
> The kind of reasoning that most of us indulge in lies along
> the lines of describing a bicycle as a "thin-framed"
> vehicle, as if a touring bicycle's lighter frame makes it
> more dangerous than a full-figured Fury Roadmaster.

Dear Carl,

I'm gratified that you finally took the conversation from "we" (we don't ALL
reason the same or draw the same conclusions, do we?) to YOU and that
glorious "Fur'Master". Your reasoning re. that is, well, quite reasonable.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > ...they ride at 20+ miles / hour. ...
>
> That's a good point, but let's not forget that forward motion is only
> one component of melon velocity in a bike crash. If you collapsed from
> a standstill, you could still sustain a critical injury just from the
> acceleration of gravity.

In this context, "could" is pretty weak. Practically speaking, nobody
ever does sustain a critical injury that way. When toppling off a
stationary bike, even if you somehow failed to break the fall with an
outstretched arm, you'd absorb most of the energy with your elbow and
shoulder.

Practically speaking, you're as likely to suffer critical injury by
tripping over a sidewalk crack when walking.

>
> Moving forward fast will add additional significant impacts, but that
> first one is pretty much just a function of falling over/sliding
> out/going over the bars/etc.

Although the risk of serious HI is always low when biking, I think it's
significantly lower when not racing or training. The heat of
competition (even just for fun) makes guys much more likely to touch
wheels, or not notice the railroad track's flange slot, or run out of
road on a fast turn, etc.

Slow cycling is, by any rational standard, boringly safe - despite all
the hype to the contrary.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Samatha wrote:

> I think wearing a helmet is
> better than not. While it might only save me once in a long while, the
> consequence of a head injury is generally very severe.

The consequences are just as severe if you're head injured in other
activities!

Yes, I'm sure you think you're more likely to be head injured while
cycling, but I doubt very much that's true. If you look into the
causes of, say, head injury fatalities in America, you'll find that
cycling causes less than 1% of the fatalities. 99% come from
activities that everyone "knows" you don't need a helmet for! And
roughly the same ratio holds for serious but non-fatal brain injuries.

Looking at it another way, there's one cycling fatality for (roughly)
every 15 million miles of cycling.

Take your annual bike mileage, divide into 15 million, and see how many
years you need to ride to get up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Need I observe that such a thing could happen any time you are
> > running? Walking? Standing around?
>
> Most people are at least a little more likely to lose their balance on a
> bike (whether through clumsiness, carelessness or just plain bad luck with
> an obstacle or blowout) than when perched upon two big slabs of feet meat.
>
> Percentages.

"Lose their balance" is NOT a synomym for "hit their head," let alone
"incur a serious brain injury."

And at least some data claims the fatality rate for pedestrians is
worse than that for cyclists, whether we look at it per mile or per
hour. The fatality count in America is at least seven times worse for
pedestrians than for cyclists.

Sure, almost all of those peds are run down by motorists. But that's
also true of the rare cyclist fatalities.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Werehatrack]

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.

(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.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Actually, deaths from pedestrian falls are far more common
> than bicycle deaths, partly because of the much larger
> number of pedestrians, partly because of the greater amount
> of time that we spend on our hind legs instead of two
> wheels, and partly because far more elderly folk prone to
> dying from falling accidents are walkers instead of
> bicyclists.

All those are true. But really, any comparison of pedestrian and
bicyclist fatalities is a comparison of infinitesmals. Both are
extremely rare occurrences. Both are over-hyped. And in both cases,
the hyping probably does more harm than good, by discouraging
activities that are personally and socially beneficial.

>
> Browse down in the link below to the "TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL
> DEATHS" for USA 2002, and you'll find that #1 was motor
> vehicle accidents at 44.3%, #2 was falls at 17.8%, and down
> at #7 was other land transport at 1.5%, presumably including
> bicycles as well as horses, skateboards, and rickshaws.
>
> http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

As a way of putting things in context: In the US, there are more
deaths due to accidental mechanical suffocation than there are due to
biking. Those suffocation deaths do NOT count the ones from ingesting
something, the kind Dr. Heimlich helps us with.

Death by accidental inhalation of poisonous gases is almost as common
as death by bike accident.

So what should we _really_ worry about?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 20:58:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >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.

You miss the point. It's not the chemistry that's the problem. It's
the magic!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Werehatrack]

On 25 Apr 2006 21:13:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Samatha wrote:
>
>> I think wearing a helmet is
>> better than not. While it might only save me once in a long while, the
>> consequence of a head injury is generally very severe.
>
>The consequences are just as severe if you're head injured in other
>activities!
>
>Yes, I'm sure you think you're more likely to be head injured while
>cycling, but I doubt very much that's true. If you look into the
>causes of, say, head injury fatalities in America, you'll find that
>cycling causes less than 1% of the fatalities. 99% come from
>activities that everyone "knows" you don't need a helmet for! And
>roughly the same ratio holds for serious but non-fatal brain injuries.
>
>Looking at it another way, there's one cycling fatality for (roughly)
>every 15 million miles of cycling.

Where is that derived from? I've seen a statement recently to the
effect that there are roughly 600 cycling-related deaths per year in
the US, with approximately two-thirds derived from head injuries. By
your numbers, that equates to 9 billion miles of cycling. If my area
is typical, and only two percent of the population rides a bike for
more than 5 miles per year, then the average cyclist is putting in an
awful lot more miles than seems reasonable.

>Take your annual bike mileage, divide into 15 million, and see how many
>years you need to ride to get up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike.

Large numbers of people spend substantial amounts of money on a daily
basis for things with a smaller likelihood. Is it any concern of
yours if they choose to make that decision?

Besides, from a strictly actuarial standpoint, given the magnitude of
the risk *if* an event occurs, and the small cost of reducing it,
what's the payoff rate on average? Those numbers actually come out
pretty strongly in favor of the helmet. But please, do as *you* wish,
and don't berate others for doing as *they* wish.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 25 Apr 2006 21:30:51 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2006 20:58:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>
>You miss the point. It's not the chemistry that's the problem. It's
>the magic!

Magic is in electronic device smoke. You let the magic smoke out, the
stuff stops working. Glue not good for smoking.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 25 Apr 2006 21:29:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>So what should we _really_ worry about?

Corrupt politicians in churches and governments, lying their asses off
to get gullible people to make them ever more powerful.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:38:52 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 25 Apr 2006 21:13:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Samatha wrote:
>>
>>> I think wearing a helmet is
>>> better than not. While it might only save me once in a long while, the
>>> consequence of a head injury is generally very severe.
>>
>>The consequences are just as severe if you're head injured in other
>>activities!
>>
>>Yes, I'm sure you think you're more likely to be head injured while
>>cycling, but I doubt very much that's true. If you look into the
>>causes of, say, head injury fatalities in America, you'll find that
>>cycling causes less than 1% of the fatalities. 99% come from
>>activities that everyone "knows" you don't need a helmet for! And
>>roughly the same ratio holds for serious but non-fatal brain injuries.
>>
>>Looking at it another way, there's one cycling fatality for (roughly)
>>every 15 million miles of cycling.
>
>Where is that derived from? I've seen a statement recently to the
>effect that there are roughly 600 cycling-related deaths per year in
>the US, with approximately two-thirds derived from head injuries. By
>your numbers, that equates to 9 billion miles of cycling. If my area
>is typical, and only two percent of the population rides a bike for
>more than 5 miles per year, then the average cyclist is putting in an
>awful lot more miles than seems reasonable.
>
>>Take your annual bike mileage, divide into 15 million, and see how many
>>years you need to ride to get up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike.

Dear Werehatrack,

"The cyclist fatality rate in the UK per billion passenger
km was 25.9 . . ."

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets#risks

We divide a billion by 25.9 and . . .

Drat! My handy calculator only goes to 999,999,999!

Reach for the calculator with two-line display and too many
buttons . . .

Er, let's see . . .1,000,000,000/25.9 = 38,610,038.61 km/UK
cyclist fatality, or 24 million miles.

So at least one stodgy British source (the CTC, whatever the
hell that may be) cited on Guy Chapman's extensively
documented site indicates about 24 million miles of riding
per UK cyclist fatality. Frank's 15 million-mile figure
sounds quite reasonable.

Incidentally, most bicycle fatalties involve a motorvehicle
and massive multiple injuries, not what most people think of
as "head injuries."

Anyone curious about such matters can find fascinating
reading and links at Guy's site. Whether you agree with the
thrust of his argument (he's not anti-helmet), you'll feel
much more informed about what's often debated than if you
just have a kinda-sorta gut feeling one way or the other.

As for the poor original poster who's concerned about
toasting her head in the Texas sun, bald fellows like me
wear a skull-cap to cool the noggin by letting the sweat
evaporate from a damp rag instead of dripping uselessly onto
the bike frame. On a really hot day, soak the skull-cap
under the tap for a pleasantly cool start. How to preserve a
coiffure while riding around Texas on a summer day is a dark
and bloody mystery.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 21:13:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Looking at it another way, there's one cycling fatality for (roughly)
> >every 15 million miles of cycling.
>
> Where is that derived from? I've seen a statement recently to the
> effect that there are roughly 600 cycling-related deaths per year in
> the US, with approximately two-thirds derived from head injuries. By
> your numbers, that equates to 9 billion miles of cycling. If my area
> is typical, and only two percent of the population rides a bike for
> more than 5 miles per year, then the average cyclist is putting in an
> awful lot more miles than seems reasonable.

The number is a conservative combination of three different data
sources, for three different countries. Different agencies computed it
for Britain, Australia and the US. The US data claimed 0.26 fatlities
per million hours cycling. If we estimate eight miles per hour average
speed, that gives one fatality per 30 million miles. British data was
figured by the researchers at 15 million miles per fatality;
Australian, at 16 million miles per fatality (the latter was converted
from kilometers). I was told the British data on bike use was gathered
by a combination of telephone surveys and street counts, although I
don't have details on the other professional agencies' methods.

> >Take your annual bike mileage, divide into 15 million, and see how many
> >years you need to ride to get up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike.
>
> Large numbers of people spend substantial amounts of money on a daily
> basis for things with a smaller likelihood. Is it any concern of
> yours if they choose to make that decision?

I've often said, if someone wants to wear purple cycling shorts, that's
their choice. Ditto for bike helmets. In general, when someone tells
me "I'm going to buy a bike helmet" I say (if anything) "OK, if you
want to."

If someone says to me, in effect, "I'm going to buy a helmet because
there's significant head injury risk in cycling," I'll point out the
real level of risk is very, very low.

The level of risk in cycling is seriously overstated. I don't like
that.

> Besides, from a strictly actuarial standpoint, given the magnitude of
> the risk *if* an event occurs, and the small cost of reducing it,
> what's the payoff rate on average?

Well, the "payoff" of bike helmets has been computed for Australia,
where mandatory helmet laws were instituted for all cycists, and where
enforcement was quite enthusiastic. The best estimates were that the
helmets cost more than they saved in medical expenses.

I think the original study is no longer available online (my bookmark
is now a dead link) but here's the summary:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/wacosts.html

In general, most people believe bike helmets - certified, by actual
test, to protect a disembodied head in a mere 2 meter drop - are
wonderfully effective, even "85%" effective. But they're not, as shown
time and again by real population data. It's the real data that was
used to compute the real payoff in the link above.

> But please, do as *you* wish,
> and don't berate others for doing as *they* wish.

See above. I don't try to talk people out of helmets. I do try to
talk people out of mistaken impressions of cycling's dangers, and of
helmets' supposed benefits.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Incidentally, most bicycle fatalties involve a motorvehicle
> and massive multiple injuries, not what most people think of
> as "head injuries."

And I suspect a strong bias allows them to say "Hmm. Crushed chest.
Smashed pelvis. Massive loss of blood. Oh, and look here - a scratch
on the forehead! Yep, yet another cyclist death that involves a head
injury!"

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > "Mike Reed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> jtaylor wrote:
> >>> b) the post referenced is not an answer to the question - YOU have
> >>> not replied whether YOU have ever heard someone say that about
> >>> their helmet.
> >>
> >> This double-ended trolling is quite entertaining. Some are trolling
> >> by trying to get somebody to answer a question whose answer has no
> >> value, and some are trolling by refusing to answer said question.
> >
> > If a party is trolling by asking a question whose answer
> > has no value, then you must allow for a refusal to answer
> > as recognition of this aspect of the question. Yes?
>
> But only if the non-answerer remains otherwise un-trolled as well. Yes?

One method of asserting control in an encounter is to
induce the other party into answering questions. Good
forms of questions are those that have only one good
answer: `You want to save the children, don't you?`
and question that are accusations, thereby forcing the
other party into defense: `Do you still have carnal
relations with swine?'

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, most bicycle fatalties involve a motorvehicle
> > and massive multiple injuries, not what most people think of
> > as "head injuries."
>
> And I suspect a strong bias allows them to say "Hmm. Crushed chest.
> Smashed pelvis. Massive loss of blood. Oh, and look here - a scratch
> on the forehead! Yep, yet another cyclist death that involves a head
> injury!"

A couple months ago a world class snow boarder fell at a
meet. He landed in the course, and did not strike any
course marker. He died of `massive internal injuries'. He
was wearing a helmet.

Injuries sustained in a heavy collision typically are the
result of the third time derivative of position: a sharp
differential of acceleration in the tissue tears it
asunder; e.g. a shock wave ruptures the aorta.

First time derivative of position is speed.
Second time derivative of position is acceleration.
Third time derivative of position is jerk.
Zeroth time derivative of position is position.

--
Michael Press

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:41:56 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:


>One method of asserting control in an encounter is to
>induce the other party into answering questions. Good
>forms of questions are those that have only one good
>answer: `You want to save the children, don't you?`
>and question that are accusations, thereby forcing the
>other party into defense: `Do you still have carnal
>relations with swine?'

Yeah, but asking Ozark if he'd every seen something he described was
nothing like that. I think he was making it up (lying) or
exagerrating to make a point, and is trying to hide that. But I don't
know that. He could clear it up with simple sentence one way or the
other.

JT

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

 

[Mike Reed]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:41:56 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >One method of asserting control in an encounter is to
> >induce the other party into answering questions. Good
> >forms of questions are those that have only one good
> >answer: `You want to save the children, don't you?`
> >and question that are accusations, thereby forcing the
> >other party into defense: `Do you still have carnal
> >relations with swine?'
>
> Yeah, but asking Ozark if he'd every seen something he described was
> nothing like that. I think he was making it up (lying) or
> exagerrating to make a point, and is trying to hide that. But I don't
> know that. He could clear it up with simple sentence one way or the
> other.

Clear it up? Well, since this is the internet, and everything you read
here must be true, I can see why you were pushing so hard for an
answer. No way anyone would make something up to get people off their
back.

I think it's funny that Ozark didn't answer. Much more entertaining
that way.

-Mike

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> I still maintain that MY chances of falling in a manner that would cause
me
> to hit my head on a hard and quite possibly sharp object are much greater
> when I'm suspended 4+ feet off the ground on a fast-moving thin-framed
> skinny-tired vehicle (controlled by...ME!) than when I'm JWA or going down
> stairs or driving or whatever. Therefore, I wear a helmet when engaging
in
> the former activity and don't when I'm not.
>

a) why do you think that you are different from the rest of the population?

b) do you also think, in light of a), that your (mis)perception sould be a
reason for the rest of the population to adopt your solution?

 

[jtaylor]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Besides, from a strictly actuarial standpoint, given the magnitude of
> the risk *if* an event occurs, and the small cost of reducing it,
> what's the payoff rate on average?

The "payoff", as you put it, is (slightly) negative.