Evolution at Work among Mountain Bikers

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:50:32 +1200, Westie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:15:04 GMT, the person
>> known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> made a
>> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
>> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>>
>>
>>>The lady told the
>>>kids they should wear helmets because they could get hurt-then she showed them
>>>her busted helmet-she split the helmet down the middle when she crashed on the
>>>jump;
>>
>>
>> LOL! You gotta love the way people use the fact their foam hats
>> failed to persuade others to wear them, so they can fail for them,
>> too!
>>
>> Guy
>
>I dunno. This debate about helmets has been chewed over and over ad
>nauseum. And in theory anyway, a bike helmet saves you by destroying
>itself - absorbs the impact and crumples like a car bumper. Splitting
>down the middle: It's not a design failure - it's a feature! Whoo hoo!
>
>I haven't really had a serious accident made less severe by a helmet.
>Having said that, a helmet did collect the sharp 1" diameter end of a
>broken branch as I ducked under overhanging foliage at speed once upon a
>time. I'm pleased that the only pieces removed were from the helmet,
>not my scalp. In that one instance, I can saying with 99% certainty
>that wearing a helmet did save me from stitches and injury.

A bike helmet is like a fuse, it fails in the process of protecting.

True for many things. Seat belts in a car are supposed to be replaced
after an accident, even if there is not visible damage. Likewise for
the impact absorbing bumpers.

A helmet does not guarantee absolute safety, it just shifts the odds
more in your favor.

The consequences of a head injury, in not life ending, can be
profoundly life changing. Every reasonable way to minimize the chances
of that is worthwhile.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Craig Brossman]

Gary S. wrote:

> A bike helmet is like a fuse, it fails in the process of protecting.
>
> True for many things. Seat belts in a car are supposed to be replaced
> after an accident, even if there is not visible damage. Likewise for
> the impact absorbing bumpers.
>
> A helmet does not guarantee absolute safety, it just shifts the odds
> more in your favor.
>
> The consequences of a head injury, in not life ending, can be
> profoundly life changing. Every reasonable way to minimize the chances
> of that is worthwhile.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)

Well said Gary, to me everything is all about understanding the risk and
using reasonable effort to minimize that. If you are still in a position
of risk (and when aren't you, really), understand the consequences and
accept and deal with them when they occur.
Or be a typical American, go blindly into most everything, and sue when
you are blind-sided by consequences you supposedly didn't comprehend.
Idiots!

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado

"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
Edward R. Murrow

 

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:15:04 GMT, the person
>known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> made a
>statement (<[email protected]> in Your
>Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>>The lady told the
>>kids they should wear helmets because they could get hurt-then she showed them
>>her busted helmet-she split the helmet down the middle when she crashed on the
>>jump;
>
>LOL! You gotta love the way people use the fact their foam hats
>failed to persuade others to wear them, so they can fail for them,
>too!

I would say that, if she crushed a helmet and didn't get any nontrivial[1]
injuries in the process, the helmet did exactly what it was supposed
to do.

Of course, if she claimed that in doing so it protected her from
a potentially fatal injury, I'd be asking questions about just how
potentially fatal that injury could have been if an inch of styrofoam
was enough to absorb the impact...


dave

[1] Note that "nontrivial" is weaker than "serious"; a bruise that lasts
a few days isn't serious, but I would count it as nontrivial.

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
Erm ... have you any idea what you're doing at all? A book, a class,
a friendly native?
--Chris Dollin in comp.lang.c

 

[Dave Vandervies]

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

>I haven't really had a serious accident made less severe by a helmet.
>Having said that, a helmet did collect the sharp 1" diameter end of a
>broken branch as I ducked under overhanging foliage at speed once upon a
>time. I'm pleased that the only pieces removed were from the helmet,
>not my scalp. In that one instance, I can saying with 99% certainty
>that wearing a helmet did save me from stitches and injury.

But would you have caught it with your head without the helmet, or would
you have gone under it? A friend of mine told me that the only bumps
his helmet had taken for him (this was about a month after he had started
wearing it mountain biking, so not really enough to make any useful claims
about the usefulness of helmets in general) were from a branch that he
had been ducking under every time he'd ridden the trail helmetless, but
caught with the helmet three times in a row as soon as he started wearing
one, because his reflexes hadn't been trained for that extra inch of foam.

This is the sort of thing that it's worth wearing a helmet for, but I'd
be more readily convinced that the helmet was a net benefit if you'd
fallen and landed on it than if you missed ducking under it.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
Erm ... have you any idea what you're doing at all? A book, a class,
a friendly native?
--Chris Dollin in comp.lang.c

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC), the
person known to the court as [email protected] (Dave
Vandervies) made a statement (<[email protected]> in
Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>>>The lady told the
>>>kids they should wear helmets because they could get hurt-then she showed them
>>>her busted helmet-she split the helmet down the middle when she crashed on the
>>>jump;

>>LOL! You gotta love the way people use the fact their foam hats
>>failed to persuade others to wear them, so they can fail for them,
>>too!

>I would say that, if she crushed a helmet and didn't get any nontrivial[1]
>injuries in the process, the helmet did exactly what it was supposed
>to do.

Quite possibly - but the helmet split. Polystyrene foam absorbs very
little energy in brittle failure; a helmet that cracks on test, fails
the test. They are not supposed to crack. Hence my - er - crack

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:15:04 GMT, the person
> known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
> >The lady told the
> >kids they should wear helmets because they could get hurt-then she showed them
> >her busted helmet-she split the helmet down the middle when she crashed on the
> >jump;
>
> LOL! You gotta love the way people use the fact their foam hats
> failed to persuade others to wear them, so they can fail for them,
> too!

I wear mine when I ride because I figure it may mitigate some types of
injury.

What's really great is that I just heard the news (months later): The
NPS is going to open the national parks to mountain biking. MJV's
gonna burst a blood vessel and bleed out. Yes, I know, the "threat is
duly noted."

E.P.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:50:32 +1200, Westie <[email protected]> wrote:

..Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
..> I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:15:04 GMT, the person
..> known to the court as Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> made a
..> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
..> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
..>
..>
..>>The lady told the
..>>kids they should wear helmets because they could get hurt-then she showed them
..>>her busted helmet-she split the helmet down the middle when she crashed on the
..>>jump;
..>
..>
..> LOL! You gotta love the way people use the fact their foam hats
..> failed to persuade others to wear them, so they can fail for them,
..> too!
..>
..> Guy
..
..I dunno. This debate about helmets has been chewed over and over ad
..nauseum. And in theory anyway, a bike helmet saves you by destroying
..itself - absorbs the impact and crumples like a car bumper. Splitting
..down the middle: It's not a design failure - it's a feature! Whoo hoo!
..
..I haven't really had a serious accident made less severe by a helmet.
..Having said that, a helmet did collect the sharp 1" diameter end of a
..broken branch as I ducked under overhanging foliage at speed once upon a
..time. I'm pleased that the only pieces removed were from the helmet,
..not my scalp. In that one instance, I can saying with 99% certainty
..that wearing a helmet did save me from stitches and injury.

Hmmm. A smarter mountain biker evolving?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:17:37 -0600, Craig Brossman <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Gary S. wrote:
..
..> A bike helmet is like a fuse, it fails in the process of protecting.
..>
..> True for many things. Seat belts in a car are supposed to be replaced
..> after an accident, even if there is not visible damage. Likewise for
..> the impact absorbing bumpers.
..>
..> A helmet does not guarantee absolute safety, it just shifts the odds
..> more in your favor.
..>
..> The consequences of a head injury, in not life ending, can be
..> profoundly life changing. Every reasonable way to minimize the chances
..> of that is worthwhile.
..>
..> Happy trails,
..> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..
..Well said Gary, to me everything is all about understanding the risk and
..using reasonable effort to minimize that. If you are still in a position
..of risk (and when aren't you, really), understand the consequences and
..accept and deal with them when they occur.
..Or be a typical American, go blindly into most everything, and sue when
..you are blind-sided by consequences you supposedly didn't comprehend.
..Idiots!

Yep!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:17:37 -0600, Craig Brossman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Gary S. wrote:
>
>> A bike helmet is like a fuse, it fails in the process of protecting.
>>
>
>Well said Gary, to me everything is all about understanding the risk and
>using reasonable effort to minimize that. If you are still in a position
>of risk (and when aren't you, really), understand the consequences and
>accept and deal with them when they occur.
>Or be a typical American, go blindly into most everything, and sue when
>you are blind-sided by consequences you supposedly didn't comprehend.
>Idiots!

It is a scientific fact that every bad thing that happens to people is
the direct fault of a large corporation, or person with money or
insurance.

It must be true, or all of those personal injury lawyers would not say
so in their TV commercials.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:44:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quite possibly - but the helmet split. Polystyrene foam absorbs very
>little energy in brittle failure; a helmet that cracks on test, fails
>the test. They are not supposed to crack. Hence my - er - crack
>
I think that many of the newer wave of helmets, the soft shell or
"softshell plus" are very inferior in the real world to the somewhat
older hard shell bike helmets.

The ANSI and Snell tests do not account for the helmet being bashed
around in regular use, or a tumbling sort of fall with multiple
impacts in one incident.

Bike helmets are a compromise between, light weight, protection
ventilation, price, and looking good.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Westie]

Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Westie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't really had a serious accident made less severe by a helmet.
>>Having said that, a helmet did collect the sharp 1" diameter end of a
>>broken branch as I ducked under overhanging foliage at speed once upon a
>>time. I'm pleased that the only pieces removed were from the helmet,
>>not my scalp. In that one instance, I can saying with 99% certainty
>>that wearing a helmet did save me from stitches and injury.
>
>
> But would you have caught it with your head without the helmet, or would
> you have gone under it? A friend of mine told me that the only bumps
> his helmet had taken for him (this was about a month after he had started
> wearing it mountain biking, so not really enough to make any useful claims
> about the usefulness of helmets in general) were from a branch that he
> had been ducking under every time he'd ridden the trail helmetless, but
> caught with the helmet three times in a row as soon as he started wearing
> one, because his reflexes hadn't been trained for that extra inch of foam.

I'm well used to wearing a helmet and I can usually adjust for that
extra inch of foam. In this case (and that's why I mentioned it) it
wasn't just a case of catching a stick in helmet because you misjudged
height of stick versus helmet. This one walloped me just above the
hairline. No doubt the helmet lost chunks because of it's shape, but
I'm 99% certain that my scalp would have come off second best if I
hadn't been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I suppose that the branch could
have glanced off my head, but I'm pretty sure from the impact and the
substantial non-moving nature of the branch etc. that it would have left
a nice gouge rather than glancing off.

> This is the sort of thing that it's worth wearing a helmet for, but I'd
> be more readily convinced that the helmet was a net benefit if you'd
> fallen and landed on it than if you missed ducking under it.

I think that I mentioned that and said that in my experience the only
time I could say that a helmet HAS saved me was this situation. Now that
I think of it, there was another time when I endoed and busted my
collarbone, the bike came over on top of me (clipped in, you see) and I
had chainring grease marks on the side of my cheek and teeth marks on
the edge of the helmet afterwards. The helmet _probably_ saved me from
the chainring becoming embedded in my forehead, but it's hard to say for
sure.

I think that I've done everything BUT actually land directly on me head.
--
Westie

 

[Rhys Sage]

I wear mine cos it keeps my head war as well as protecting against
low-hanging bushes. Plus protecting against objects thrown at passing
cyclists by psychotic children (of which there are many).