Scientific American does bicycle helmets

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)

This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a
significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries"
(anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996
and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of
bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists
(and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes
to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the
research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they
read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker
says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch
out for cars."

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or
Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example,
the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for
standard cars.

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting
because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it
into a general interest publication.

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the
truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my
naked skull. :-)

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the
truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on
my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.

Mike Kruger said:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)

This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

Are you sure he's a reporter, and not a politician in training?

Pat

Email address works as is.

Roger Zoul said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me
that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have
had no effect on my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
cut.

Hardly.

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)

This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

Next topic : Does wearing your helmut in Iraq attract bullets.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill

Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
cut.

Hardly.

Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
damage).

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike

Kruger said:

it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.

On Oct 3, 3:03 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
my office.

http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Ad hominem attacks on people who hold a different view are not a sign
of superior intellect. Therefore, by your logic, I would have to
conclude that you must have been using a defective helmet.

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Oct 3, 2:03 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.

Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
a [censored].

A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the latter (rat)
accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy, rudeness and
classlessness.

Doesn't get much better LOL

Mike Kruger said:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)

This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Smokey

Dennis P. Harris said:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike

Kruger said:

it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that
the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.

I write it's in Scientific American, meaning the helmet debate made it into
a general interest publication.
You correct me by noting that Scientific American is a general interest
publication.

????

--
Mike Kruger
Give no quarter to the paradigm people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
effect on my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
contact with a rough surface.

(Raising my hand) I did! I did!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
effect on my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.

Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my naked
skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?

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

Quoted message said:

On Oct 3, 3:03 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
my office.

http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/

- Frank Krygowski

If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.

Gooserider <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.

A well known quote from him is:

"Ein kluger Kopf paßt in keinem Helm"

(A intelligent head doesn't fit in any helmet)

Even though he probably only meant soldiers helmets with that, maybe you
should think about that.

Ingo.

Quoted message said:

Mike Kruger said:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

Quoted message said:

and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

Quoted message said:

(note the different headlines!)

Quoted message said:

This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

Quoted message said:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

Quoted message said:

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

Quoted message said:

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.

Quoted message said:

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Gooserider said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 3, 3:03 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Quoted message said:

Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
my office.

Quoted message said:

http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.

Doubtful. He hadn't been exposed to the false propaganda claiming
that bicyclists are at significant risk for serious head injuries.
And if he had been exposed to the propaganda, he would have had enough
mathematical sense to realize it was hype.

Besides, he lived in a culture where cycling was (and is) considered a
normal way to get around. It was not treated as a fancy equipment,
special clothing, extreme sport.

Switzerland is still that way. So is this place:

http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/web_preview_2006.pdf

Or this place:

http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg

Prissy Americans with their seldom-used toys think they know more than
cultures that actually _ride_ bicycles. It's a little laughable.

- Frank Krygowski

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
effect on my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet
in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.

Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my
naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?

I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly possible that
withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the truck mirror would have
missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My helmet is very useful for the
times my captain ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm
thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt.
(And I happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
just part of life.)