No Helmets Needed?

NYC XYZ said:

Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Quoted message said:

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent?

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Quoted message said:

Seems like a harder thing to do, no?

Sliding out it's just as easy.

Quoted message said:

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org
People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.
Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an
oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet
topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say
that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious
Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Sliding out it's just as easy.

Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than
compared to an upright? To fall out/off.

Quoted message said:

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are
"boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever
-- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of
something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow.

I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light
(or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely
stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org

Cool, thanks!

Quoted message said:

People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.

I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone
drivers" instead!

Quoted message said:

Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an
oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet
topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say
that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious
Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Sliding out it's just as easy.

Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than
compared to an upright? To fall out/off.

Quoted message said:

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are
"boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever
-- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of
something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow.

I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light
(or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely
stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org

Cool, thanks!

Quoted message said:

People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.

I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone
drivers" instead!

Quoted message said:

Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

Quoted message said:

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

NYC XYZ said:

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets!

In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

SMS said:

NYC XYZ wrote:

In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure.

Quoted message said:

Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

Hmm...but Europeans are supposed better edjamacated than US-ians, and
they're zipping around carefree.

NYC XYZ said:

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets!

As Steve Scharf suggests, this is probably about insurance. In the UK
various insurers have tried threatening cyclists with contributory
negligence claims when they've been injured while not wearing helmets,
but as yet none of these have been successfully pressed. The main
cycling organisation here, the Cycle Touring Club, has quite rigorously
acted against such claims.

Quoted message said:

Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than
compared to an upright? To fall out/off.

Depends what sort of falling off. A sideways slide on gravel is at
least as easy, where flying over the bars is very difficult. On average
I find I don't fall off any sort of bike very often except a mountain
bike, and that's more a function of the terrain I'm not doing a very
good job of than the bike!

Quoted message said:

No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are
"boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever
-- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of
something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow.

Helmets will work by load spreading and energy absorption. The latter
will generally be far more effective than the former because there's
only so much head you can spread the load over, and the neck will often
take the whole lot at some point in any case. Polystyrene is actually
pretty effective as an absorber, but it remains the case that in the
sort of accidents that will get you killed it isn't good enough.
Helmets have a track record of not doing anything much to rates of
serious injuries in cycling populations, though I certainly wear mine if
I go mountain biking because I expect to fall off and at the sort of low
speeds the EN1078 spec is built to actually tangibly help. If you think
you'll fall off wear a lid to prevent a nasty graze and a headache, but
don't assume there's much chance of it saving your life.

Quoted message said:

I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light
(or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely
stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!!

Stronger in the sense of ability to break it in your hands, yes, but
better capable of absorbing energy? Unlikely. Most helmets made of
tougher stuff have quite a bit of absorbing material as well as the
shell, or have a fair bit of extra room and a cradle to spread the
impact (like a site or climbing helmet, where it's a pretty safe
assumption a primary impact will come from above)

Quoted message said:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it

Nothing stopping you organise your own rides, of course.

One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different
performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be
slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a
problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy
circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at
a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to
speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you
can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group.
Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

NYC XYZ said:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!!

Go buy a TV. It'll be protected by styrofoam. As will most fragile
electronics. It's an excellent material for the job.

NYC XYZ said:

SMS said:

NYC XYZ wrote:

In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure.

It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure.

I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB
sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_
require helmets, and we were not told to do so.

That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the
LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their
organized rides:

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements.

I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of
the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true
believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids"
promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on
those blurbs.

- Frank Krygowski

Rich said:

NYC XYZ said:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!!

Go buy a TV.

Bad advice. Those things are tools of the devil! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>, Rich

() said:

NYC XYZ said:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!!

Go buy a TV. It'll be protected by styrofoam. As will most fragile
electronics. It's an excellent material for the job.

Provided, that is, that the thickness thereof is about six times that of
the foam in the average MartleHat.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Jack Hackett for Pope, next time!

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

Quoted message said:

People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century on
a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death often
painted.
Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as his
signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear
something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it
might just save your life some day.

Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he does
and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no way
this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly suspect
he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free
Internet access.

Do any of us here really need to know his phone number (with extension no
less) and his fax number? If he wants to tell us that he is from Dundee,
Scotland, that is fine and all we would ever have to know about him. But he
is crazy - and you listen to him at your peril.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to
the ground as it is....

I've managed that trick. I think it is impossible, though I could be
wrong, to do an endo from a bent. I was on a greenway and some kids
were fooling around in front of me, and I had to manoeuver sharply --
hitting minors is poor form here. This greenway was next to the FDR
drive and there was a temporary concrete construction barrier. Another
6" and my head would have been glancing and bouncing off the concrete at
18 MPH. Fortunately, I was still on the grass but I considered myself
lucky that I had some protection on my head. This is a highly unusual
confluence of circumstances, but it's always the thing you don't expect
that trips you up.

Quoted message said:

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

I once saw the engineering specs on styrofoam/epoxy one-shot helmets, if
that's what you're talking about. They're good for one crash and then
you toss the styrofoam and keep your head. I'm not an engineer and I
can't speak for them. I can say this about styrofoam, though. I once
had an opportunity to get a look at a downed fighter plane in the middle
east. I noticed that it was made of aluminum foil, styrofoam, and epoxy

Quoted message said:

--ag

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Go buy a TV.

Bad advice. Those things are tools of the devil! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, do you have any statistics to back this up? <=]

NYC XYZ said:

Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the
ground as it is....

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and
lighter than styrofoam?

NO NO NO not another helmet thread!

Ken
Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one.
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

In article <[email hidden]>, NYC

XYZ () said:

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the
ground as it is....

More times than I can count. Wet leaves, errant motorcars, over-
enthusiastic cornering, sudden tyre blow-outs... And the closer one is
to the ground when it decides to let go, the harder it is to catch any
slide...

Quoted message said:

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

By which I presume you mean something like a motorcycle helmet? Weight
and lack of ventilation, mostly.

Quoted message said:

Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and
lighter than styrofoam?

<URL:http://tinyurl.com/78ows> ?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post Office.

NYC XYZ said:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!!

It's one of the best materials for impact absorption, that holds its own
shape. The fact that it is inexpensive may bother you, but it's widely
used for impact absorption. What are you looking for? A helmet with
air-bags? "http://www.sheldonbrown.com/airbag-helmet.html"

SMS said:

NYC XYZ wrote:

----------clip----

Quoted message said:

Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true 🙂

I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the
key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give
new meaning to the term "junk science".

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Quoted message said:

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true 🙂

It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,
and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These
studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.

catzz66 wrote on Thursday 05 January 2006 16:58:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Go buy a TV.

Bad advice. Those things are tools of the devil! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, do you have any statistics to back this up? <=]

No need for stats - just look at the state of the world!
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid