Paramount

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

Helmets may hurt. Larger target, rotational neck injury.
Bloody scalp is slicker than high tensile foam.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bruce Gilbert said:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends
from back then that are still staring at the walls because of crash
injured brains. The helmet argument stops the first time you have to
change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a while.
(No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed for
impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not very useful.
As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit for children than
adults- children are more likely to be riding a bike within the
limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head eheight fromwhich to
fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your head, which is nice, but
it's not likely to add much in terms of brain protection- a bit perhaps
in straight line impacts and nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the
brain. Interestingly, the decisive factor in the severity of brain
injuries is not the trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards-
cytotoxic edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are
released into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

For perspective, I am a psychologist. I work in nursing homes and have
had hundreds of clients with traumatic brain injuries over the past 17
years. Of those, two had cycling-related brain injuries. In one case,
the patient was struck by a car while riding his bike and hurled into
the curb- he was about 6 years old at the time (it was about 1930 when
this happened). In the other case, the patient was 21 and crashed, also
striking his head on the curb. In his case, his cognitive status has
been progressively impaired by a poorly controlled seizure disorder and
he also has paranoid schizophrenia, so it is very hard to estimate which
cognitive deficits were acquired when. The vast majority of my clients
with brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle accidents and falls,
followed by anoxic brain injuries suffered during heart attacks,
seizures, etc.

According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types (20-30%,
biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age), and firearms
(12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About 45-50% of TBIs
are work-related, at least half of those being from falls. A study by
the Minnesota Department of Health found that motor vehicle accidents,
falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher incidence of brain injuries than
cycling, and that road cycling had a lower incidence of brain injuries
than off-road cycling.

Thanks for this. Are the figures in the final paragraph
adjusted for rates of participation in the activities?

--
Michael Press

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bruce Gilbert said:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Yawn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The
helmet argument stops the first time you have to change an adult
diaper...

Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Where did Bruce say his friends' crashes weren't low-speed falls? Lose
balance due to uneven surface and smash melon into curb edge -- you want
properly fitted plastic & foam protection or not?

Get a clue, Tommy. (Today's catch-phrase...for a WIDE range of topics,
apparently.)

Yo Billy,

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!! 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tim McNamara said:

...
According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types (20-30%,
biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age), and firearms
(12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About 45-50% of TBIs
are work-related, at least half of those being from falls. A study by
the Minnesota Department of Health found that motor vehicle accidents,
falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher incidence of brain injuries than
cycling, and that road cycling had a lower incidence of brain injuries
than off-road cycling.

I though the leading cause of brain damage was watching too much
commercial television!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm said:

..Not since the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

Nonsense. There has been great progress in the design and availability
of recumbent bicycles and trikes. 🙂

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

landotter' who? said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

Quoted message said:

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

Quoted message said:

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.

http://tinyurl.com/2m2vzv

EYETHCREAM EYETHCREAM, WOO WOOO!

Nice picture of Fabrizio Mazzoleni!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

David L. Johnson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but doubt
it).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

David L. Johnson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed
to protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a
Mack truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but
doubt it).

It would suck either way! ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bruce Gilbert said:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few
friends from back then that are still staring at the walls
because of crash injured brains. The helmet argument stops the
first time you have to change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a
while. (No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed
for impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not
very useful. As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit
for children than adults- children are more likely to be riding a
bike within the limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head
eheight fromwhich to fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your
head, which is nice, but it's not likely to add much in terms of
brain protection- a bit perhaps in straight line impacts and
nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the brain. Interestingly,
the decisive factor in the severity of brain injuries is not the
trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards- cytotoxic
edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are released
into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

For perspective, I am a psychologist. I work in nursing homes and
have had hundreds of clients with traumatic brain injuries over the
past 17 years. Of those, two had cycling-related brain injuries.
In one case, the patient was struck by a car while riding his bike
and hurled into the curb- he was about 6 years old at the time (it
was about 1930 when this happened). In the other case, the patient
was 21 and crashed, also striking his head on the curb. In his
case, his cognitive status has been progressively impaired by a
poorly controlled seizure disorder and he also has paranoid
schizophrenia, so it is very hard to estimate which cognitive
deficits were acquired when. The vast majority of my clients with
brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle accidents and falls,
followed by anoxic brain injuries suffered during heart attacks,
seizures, etc.

According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause
of brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types
(20-30%, biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age),
and firearms (12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About
45-50% of TBIs are work-related, at least half of those being from
falls. A study by the Minnesota Department of Health found that
motor vehicle accidents, falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher
incidence of brain injuries than cycling, and that road cycling had
a lower incidence of brain injuries than off-road cycling.

Thanks for this. Are the figures in the final paragraph adjusted for
rates of participation in the activities?

The MNDoT ones were not, as I recall. My old URL for that report (it
was available in a PDF) no longer works, but you might be able to find
it still on their Web site. And maybe an updated version, too, the one
I read would be several years old now.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

David L. Johnson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed
> to protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a
Mack truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but
doubt it).

It would suck either way! ;-)

More lidless. :-P

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed
>> to protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a
> Mack truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but
doubt it).

Quoted message said:

It would suck either way! ;-)

More lidless. :-P

This brings up the question; why do residential heads typically have
lids, but heads in institutional and commercial use facilities do not?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Jul 4, 1:48 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though.

And a cotton t-shirt works against a BB gun. Yet the protective t-
shirt promoters are a lot more rare than the helmet promoters.

And they _never_ claim to prevent 85% of gunshot wounds!

Quoted message said:

Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

True. In fact, there are plenty of bike fatality victims who wore
helmets, and many of their deaths had nothing to do with trucks.
Simple falls have proven to be beyond the "life saving" capacity of
many helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt.

The main way they hurt is by convincing people that ordinary cycling
is a high-risk activity. And that leads to reduced cycling,
segregation to separate facilities, losses in court cases ("He knew
the risks..."😉 and other evils.

But there must be many cases where a helmet impacted where a bare head
would have missed. Those impacts may cause injury - for example,
through rotational acceleration. How much, we don't know.

Quoted message said:

Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

True.

- Frank Krygowski

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>> head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed
>>> to protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Quoted message said:

>> Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a
>> Mack truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

Quoted message said:

> You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but
> doubt it).

Quoted message said:

It would suck either way! ;-)

More lidless. :-P

This brings up the question; why do residential heads typically have
lids, but heads in institutional and commercial use facilities do not?

Discourage pondering. (And changing clothes.)

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed for

impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not very useful.
As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit for children than
adults- children are more likely to be riding a bike within the
limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head eheight fromwhich to
fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your head, which is nice, but
it's not likely to add much in terms of brain protection- a bit perhaps
in straight line impacts and nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the
brain. Interestingly, the decisive factor in the severity of brain
injuries is not the trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards-
cytotoxic edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are
released into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

your stats and arguements lie- propoganda. the basic fact of the
matter is that helmets protect at speeds much greater than the 10mph
you cite. I guess you ride at about 10 mph for that type of reasoning
to seem valid to you. I've "used" 3 helmets- and certainly if I wasn't
wearing one "I" would not be here now. You may go ahead and ride
without one as you wish, hopefully, you will never need to be wearing
one- but all it takes is just that one time and it could make the
difference-

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bruce Gilbert said:

...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.

WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Quoted message said:

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The helmet
argument stops the first time you have to change an adult diaper...

Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats.

Yeah, and how do we know that their adult diapers are related to a
crash impact? It could just be coincidental early-onset dementia.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bruce Gilbert said:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends
from back then that are still staring at the walls because of crash
injured brains. The helmet argument stops the first time you have to
change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a while.
(No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed for
impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not very useful.

You don't hit the ground at 14 mph in a fall from a bicycle. But
you're right: if you run headfirst into something on your bicycle,
like a car or a tree, the helmet isn't going to help much.

As usual on this ng, people insist on seeing things as black or white
and therefore miss the truth.

Quoted message said:

I've "used" 3 helmets- and certainly if I wasn't
wearing one "I" would not be here now.

I don't know the circumstance of your accidents, but in every case
I've heard where someone said something like that it's turned out that
they are very mistaken and irrational about helmet use.

It's amazing that you have three times you had accidents that were
severe enough to have been deadly and yet were not so severe as to
overwhelm those small pieces of foam or break your neck or other body
parts in crippling or deadly ways. Or perhaps you are crippled or
severely injured in other ways?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

your stats and arguements lie- propoganda. the basic fact of the
matter is that helmets protect at speeds much greater than the 10mph
you cite.

Oh? Have you read anything about the certification tests for
helmets? Do you know how ridiculously weak they are?

Quoted message said:

I've "used" 3 helmets- and certainly if I wasn't
wearing one "I" would not be here now.

Given the extreme rarity of bike fatalities, that's an incredible
statement. Literally.

I'll grant you this: There are all sorts of riding styles and riding
skills. And I'm not trying to put anyone down, but: If a person
chooses a riding style whose risk exceeds his skill, maybe a helmet
makes sense. That can certainly apply to lots of mountain bikers,
lots of crit riders, and one or two super-clumsy people I've known.

But we shouldn't buy the propaganda that anyone rolling on any wheels
(other than the sacred, revered automobile) MUST encase their head in
foam. For ordinary bike riding, the level of risk is just not
there!

Sure, the fantasy propaganda is extremely well funded, well organized,
and politically well-connected. But it's false propaganda
nonetheless. Any dispassionate look at the data will show that.

Quoted message said:

You may go ahead and ride
without one as you wish...

.... for now. There are many people working hard to make that
illegal...

Quoted message said:

hopefully, you will never need to be wearing
one- but all it takes is just that one time and it could make the
difference-

Why do guys like you not preach to the non-bicyclist head injury
candidates?? Do you forget that 99% of serious head injuries have
nothing to do with cycling?

Why are you so intent on making simple bicycling sound horribly
dangerous??

- Frank Krygowski

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've "used" 3 helmets- and certainly if I wasn't
wearing one "I" would not be here now.

I don't know the circumstance of your accidents, but in every case
I've heard where someone said something like that it's turned out that
they are very mistaken and irrational about helmet use.

It's amazing that you have three times you had accidents that were
severe enough to have been deadly and yet were not so severe as to
overwhelm those small pieces of foam or break your neck or other body
parts in crippling or deadly ways. Or perhaps you are crippled or
severely injured in other ways?

Well, we know one thing for sure - fall #1 didn't encourage better riding
skills, and #2 did nothing to shake him up. #3 is probably a prelude to yet
another fall on the head, and another, and so on. Soon he won't be writing
to this forum - or to anyone. Time is on our side.