Head Protection

censored Chambers said:

I would like to thank everybody who replied to this question. In the way
that you all did your very best to help a newbie, I rate you all the most
helpful and friendly usenet group I have ever written to.

The outcome of all this is that I have now ordered an XXL helmet from
Wiggle, and I am looking forward to the few days we shall be spending in
Norfolk in April. Not all cycling, though. Some of the time we shall be on
foot, birdwatching.

You might well wear your helmet when walking and watching the birds;
the chance of it being of any good to you is the much the same as when
cycling...

landotter said:

I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat. I've also been
spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding discipline.

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.
Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

David L. Johnson said:

landotter said:

I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat. I've also been
spared a couple stitches when taking a mild tumble with one on. So
what. They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every
now and then they keep you from getting sewn up. Every breath wasted
on their discussion would be better spent on proper riding
discipline.

Quoted message said:

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
lives.

Err, re-read what it wrote.

Quoted message said:

Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving
me from a concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural
norms insist that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can
win.

Of course, if one thinks it's a waste of one's time to discuss helmets, one
can't help wonder why one would reply to the OP's wonderfully valid
question. (Especially if one goes on to /admit/ that a lid can save a
life -- something even pro-helmet people rarely claim.)

One's mind boggles at the blustery buffoonery... (Thus a long-ago plonk.)

Bill "ommmmmmmm" S.

censored Chambers said:

I would like to thank everybody who replied to this question. In the way
that you all did your very best to help a newbie, I rate you all the most
helpful and friendly usenet group I have ever written to.

The outcome of all this is that I have now ordered an XXL helmet from
Wiggle, and I am looking forward to the few days we shall be spending in
Norfolk in April. Not all cycling, though. Some of the time we shall be on
foot, birdwatching. And perhaps hire a rowing boat with my wife on the
Broads. ("Broads" in British English, by the way, does not mean the same as
it does in American English). Might even take her on a boat trip to see the
seals.

[censored] Chambers Leeds UK

You are now aware that about half of the responses are going to be to
tell you why you don't need to wear a helmet, but I am glad you found
your answer.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

landotter said:

On Mar 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> > On Mar 8, 5:29 pm, "[censored] Chambers"
> > <[email hidden]>
> > wrote:

> > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
> > > Park
> > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
> > > again. I am 64
> > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on
> > > my back
> > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
> > > project will
> > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
> > > shall be
> > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.

> > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
> > > in the
> > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
> > > Halfords,
> > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at
> > > all, was
> > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of
> > > a fall.

> > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
> > a
> > helmet, if you ride responsibly

> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.

I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.

That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.

IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
"can't hurt, might help".

No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
"don't help, might hurt".

www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you don't
support wearing a helmet?

Gooserider said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

On Mar 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 5:29 pm, "[censored] Chambers"
> > > <[email hidden]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
> > > > Park
> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
> > > > again. I am 64
> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun on
> > > > my back
> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
> > > > project will
> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
> > > > shall be
> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
> > > > in the
> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been to
> > > > Halfords,
> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit at
> > > > all, was
> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event of
> > > > a fall.
>
> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to warrant
> > > a
> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.

That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.

IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
"can't hurt, might help".

No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
"don't help, might hurt".

www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you don't
support wearing a helmet?

Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.

Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.

Gooserider said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

On Mar 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 8, 5:29 pm, "[censored] Chambers"
>>> <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>>>> Park
>>>> (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>>>> again. I am 64
>>>> years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun
>>>> on my back
>>>> and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>>>> project will
>>>> be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>>>> shall be
>>>> going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>
>>>> But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>>>> in the
>>>> British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been
>>>> to Halfords,
>>>> and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
>>>> at all, was
>>>> uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
>>>> of a fall.
>
>>> Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to
>>> warrant a
>>> helmet, if you ride responsibly
>
>> I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>> fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>
> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.

That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning
it. OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in
his encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.

IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
"can't hurt, might help".

No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
"don't help, might hurt".

www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
don't support wearing a helmet?

ROTFL (Pssst. Flailor thinks helmets are dangerous, too.) ROTFL

On Mar 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.

:-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
over the years.

I suppose it's possible that real learning has taken place. But I
don't think the success rate has been 100% - that is, enough to
justify "no one here will quibble."

Quoted message said:

Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.

The statement on "social norms" puzzles me.

Quoted message said:

From what I can see, the "social norm" in America is to NOT wear a

helmet. I don't recall anybody showing that even a simple majority of
cyclists wear helmets at all, let alone on every ride.

If you define "social norm" in terms of club cyclists (like the
Buycycling models who would never wear a jersey that lacked snazzy
graphics, and who add a cog every time Shimano says "jump"😉 you may be
right. But that's a very special class of cyclist.

And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
ride a bike at all.

I tend to ignore both of those social norms.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

On Mar 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
lives.

Quoted message said:

:-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
over the years.

Why did you delete Flailor's comment, Frank? Why here, I'll go retrieve it:

"They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every now and
then they keep you from getting sewn up."

So don't make it out that pro-lid people (and a small minority at that) are
the only ones claiming that helmets can be effective. Instead, you might
ask why someone who apparently /does/ think that a foam hat can save one's
life argues so vehemently against those who CHOOSE to wear one.

{snip}

Quoted message said:

I tend to ignore both of those social norms.

Not to mention personal accounts of real-life experiences.

Off to ride, HAND! Bill S.

Quoted message said:

And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
ride a bike at all.

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:06:53 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Mar 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save
lives.

Quoted message said:

:-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
over the years.

Why did you delete Flailor's comment, Frank? Why here, I'll go retrieve it:

"They don't save lives, except on very rare occasions, and every now and
then they keep you from getting sewn up."

You've had trouble attributing quotes before - this seems to be yet
another such error.

The part you quote came from a post by "landotter".

And as for not saving lives, you could just go read the data that you
have repeatedly told us you'd rather ignore...

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 9 Mar 2007 10:07:21 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 10:14 am, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 7:17 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, "landotter" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 8, 5:29 pm, "[censored] Chambers"
>> > > <[email hidden]>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > Having enjoyed a bicycle hire experience in the Cotswold Water
>> > > > Park
>> > > > (England) last year, I have decided to take up gentle cycling
>> > > > again. I am 64
>> > > > years old, so I do not want anything too extreme, just the sun
>> > > > on
>> > > > my back
>> > > > and the wind going through whatever hair I still have. My next
>> > > > project will
>> > > > be the Norfolk Coastal Path, where you can also hire bicycles. I
>> > > > shall be
>> > > > going to Norfolk for a mini-break in mid-April.
>>
>> > > > But I have a problem. I have an unusually large head, size 7-3/4
>> > > > in the
>> > > > British system of measurement. 65cm circumference. I have been
>> > > > to
>> > > > Halfords,
>> > > > and even their Extra Large size (nominally 63 cm) would not fit
>> > > > at
>> > > > all, was
>> > > > uncomfortable, and would not offer any protection in the event
>> > > > of
>> > > > a fall.
>>
>> > > Then avoid falling. Casual cycling isn't dangerous enough to
>> > > warrant
>> > > a
>> > > helmet, if you ride responsibly
>>
>> > I'll mention that to the lady that hit me....from behind, when she
>> > fell asleep at 10:30 on a Satuday MORNING.
>>
>> I've been hit from behind by a Lincoln Navigator. Sheared off my
>> teeth, moved my nose to the side of my face, and required fifty
>> stitches. A helmet wouldn't have done jack squat.
>
>That's your opinion of your experience, and no one is questioning it.
>OTOH, Peter feels that a helmet would have been of some help in his
>encounter, and that opinion should be respected, too.
>
>IMO, Peter has the best advice regarding helmets, which, IIRC, is
>"can't hurt, might help".

No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
"don't help, might hurt".

www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
don't
support wearing a helmet?

Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.

Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.

And removing the best prevention for reducing potential head injury while
cycling is just plain stupid. Duh. Bike helmets aren't to prevent injury if
one is hit by a car. They're to prevent injury if one falls down. A five
foot fall to concrete will do damage.

Gooserider said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> No, the best advice comes from population-level studies, which say
> "don't help, might hurt".
>
> www.cyclehelmets.org

So, let me get this straight----you think iPods are dangerous but you
don't
support wearing a helmet?

Statistical studies don't support wearing a helmet.

Purposly reducing one's awareness while cycling is just plain stupid.

And removing the best prevention for reducing potential head injury while
cycling is just plain stupid.

You must have missed the URL above - here it is again.

www.cyclehelmets.org

wherein it is clear that helmets make either zero, or negative impact
on cycle injuy rates.

Quoted message said:

On Mar 9, 10:11 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No one here will quibble with the statement that they don't save lives.

:-) Really? I seem to remember quite a few statements to that effect
over the years.

I suppose it's possible that real learning has taken place.

Maybe I presumed as much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nevertheless, saving you from even more stitches, or saving me from a
concussion, is not so bad. Especially when the cultural norms insist
that we wear them. Better to fight the battles we can win.

The statement on "social norms" puzzles me.

Simple. She who must be obeyed would have puppies were I to venture out
without one. But, actually, I've been wearing them for a long time,
since back when they were leather.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From what I can see, the "social norm" in America is to NOT wear a

helmet. I don't recall anybody showing that even a simple majority of
cyclists wear helmets at all, let alone on every ride.

If you define "social norm" in terms of club cyclists (like the
Buycycling models who would never wear a jersey that lacked snazzy
graphics, and who add a cog every time Shimano says "jump"😉 you may be
right. But that's a very special class of cyclist.

So would be the people who read this newsgroup, actually. But you could
manage to make your point without insulting riders who don't do it your
way.

Frankly, I don't care whether someone else wears a helmet or not. It's
so much more important to worry about wrong-way cyclists, or those who
think stop signs are for the other guy. Or, most importantly, those who
don't ride at all.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
ride a bike at all.

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

The reason most people don't ride has to do with cars. Riding in a car
isolates people from others, and we have grown to not only like that
isolation, but to insist upon it. On a bike, it's you out there in
public; in a car, you are protected, isolated, alone. This also
explains why people don't, as a rule, ride mass transit.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
ride a bike at all.

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

Further, politicians know that

a) children do not vote

b) children grow up

and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
is to start with the children.

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:53:46 -0400, "David L. Johnson"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 11 Mar 2007 12:49:12 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
> ride a bike at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

Quoted message said:

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

Further, politicians know that

a) children do not vote

b) children grow up

and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
is to start with the children.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysjngy

HTH

HAND!

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:53:46 -0400, "David L. Johnson"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 11 Mar 2007 12:49:12 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
> ride a bike at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

Quoted message said:

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

Further, politicians know that

a) children do not vote

b) children grow up

and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
is to start with the children.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysjngy

HTH

HAND!

Quoted message said:

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

OK so far

Quoted message said:

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

I do not believe that this is valid, especially not regarding children.

Quoted message said:

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

This is, unfortunately, true.

Quoted message said:

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

But the culture of fear has preceded such laws, and goes far beyond
bikes. Children are not allowed to go to a neighbor's house except with
a parent, usually driving. They no longer are allowed to simply "go out
and play" as we did, or at least I did, as a child. We have painted the
world in general as so scary that many kids are afraid to do anything on
their own, and adults are afraid to go out in public without a steel
cage protecting them, isolating them, keeping others at bay.

It's not the helmets, it's the fear, that is the problem.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:53:46 -0400, "David L. Johnson"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 11 Mar 2007 12:49:12 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And stepping back a bit, the _real_ social norm in America is to not
> ride a bike at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With all the MHL's in America, this should be no surprise.

Quoted message said:

It has nothing to do with helmet laws, as you well know. All but two
cities (as I recall, Seattle and DC), only have such laws for children.
That is irrelevant, since most mothers would not let their children
ride bikes, anyway. We're much to afraid.

Don't you see what's going on here?

Children are not allowed to drive motorcars.

If they wish to be mobile, the most available method is cycling.

MHL's reduce the number of people who cycle.

If you do not cycle as a child, it is probable you are less likely to
take it up when you are old enough to drive a motorcar.

And the reason mothers are afarid of their children cycling is that
they see it as "dangerous" - after all, the law requires that people
wear helmets while doing it, it _must_ be dangerous.

Further, politicians know that

a) children do not vote

b) children grow up

and therefore if they wish to institute an MHL for adults the best way
is to start with the children.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysjngy

HTH

HAND!