Sorry, hemlets again

Tony Raven said:

Velvet said:

Also, dunno if anyone's aware, but modern horse riding hats are worn
with a cover over them? Not just to make them look pretty apparently,
but if it impacts with a turning force - rotational, I guess, the
surface grips the cover and NOT the hat, the cover being only slipped
on over the hat and not attached to it all over, the idea being I
think to help remove some of the forces involved from acting on the
helmet directly - the cover is ripped off before the helmet shell
itself contacts the ground.

There is a guy who has designed a motorbike helmet which has an outer
skin that can slide over the inner skin for exactly the same reason.
Can't find a link to it at the moment though

Tony

Oh, while I remember it, my cycling shorts have a panel at the side like
that too. The outer is very stretchy thick lycra stuff, and while it's
stiched all round the outer in a oblong shape, it moves a LOT over the
inner layer. So in a crash, I guess it helps soak up some of the energy
by stretching rather than just wearing straight through to the skin.

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Stoatboy said:

Quoted message said:

the idea being I think to
help remove some of the forces involved from acting on the helmet
directly - the cover is ripped off before the helmet shell itself
contacts the ground.

I like. That's clever.

Me too. But I can't comment on whether it actually provides any
measureably benefit, not having had time to look into the relevent
physics and try and dig up if any studies have been done.

I've often thought that a cover for a helmet with mesh panels where the
vents are could be a) scotchlight and very visible at night, b) prevent
stinging things entering the vents, and c) might help for the above
reason in an accident. Of course, it might also lead to d) snagging on
branches if you happen to be a MTBer, which would be a Bad Thing, but
possible not as bad as if you snag a helmet vent on a branch.

Actually, you know, I'm surprised there's not more cross-sport
discussion about this sort of thing - motorbikers, horse riders,
cyclists and climbers all experience some similar (and some very
different) things in accidents, and I can't help thinking that pooling
knowledge would help everyone.

Yes there are some very specific requirements (overheating in cyclists
for one!) but things like whether an outer slideable skin to a helmet (a
la horseriding helmet) would benefit a cyclist is something that'd be
fairly easy to determine, and something that I don't think thus far has
been looked at as a possible Good Thing.

--

Velvet

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

anonymous coward <[email hidden]> writes:
>
> The way I resolve this problem is to wear a helmet 50% of the time.
> I'm not sure that this is the best-thought-out solution, though.
>
Indeed, it depends which 50% of the time. As 100% of my head injuries
requiring a hospital visit occurred when I was asleep, I'd recommend
wearing one in bed.

Were you still in bed when you acquired your injuries, or did you end up
with the same problem as me? - there's no box for 'injuries sustained

while

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sleep walking' in the hospital form.

No, I was out bivouaccing and someone trod on it.

giggle :-)

(ok, it probably wasn't funny at the time, but...)

cheers,
clive

Velvet said:

Actually, you know, I'm surprised there's not more cross-sport
discussion about this sort of thing - motorbikers, horse riders,
cyclists and climbers all experience some similar (and some very
different) things in accidents, and I can't help thinking that pooling
knowledge would help everyone.

Swerving a little, I did wonder if there were any multisport helmets when
I was getting a new helmet for this adventure race. It turns out there is
a Salewa helmet which meets standards (not sure which ones) for bicycle
use, climbing and canoing. Of course it is very much a compromise. It
isn't vented on top since it must stop small stones from falling on the
head, so it would probably be too hot for long rides. Also, if it took a
serious knock then it may need to be replaced, whereas dedicated climbing
helemts are tougher than that. However, I can see its use when you have to
carry helmets for two or three disciplines with you at all times. It's bad
enough with shoes!

Colin

Dr Curious said:

People who use AK47's only ever need the one.
Excepting for tyres and tubes and the like they may well buy
most of their spares off of Ebay.

Your AK47 may vary: most require ammunition, not tubes. Unless you are
really talking about bikes, in which case: Bollocks. Very few people on
this NG have only one bike. We (me, wife, kids) have about £6,000 worth
between us.

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average income and are
more than averagely likely to own houses, cars and just about anythign else
apart from satellite TV - and I bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2
:-)

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Velvet said:

Actually, you know, I'm surprised there's not more cross-sport
discussion about this sort of thing - motorbikers, horse riders,
cyclists and climbers all experience some similar (and some very
different) things in accidents, and I can't help thinking that pooling
knowledge would help everyone.

You might get some rather odd looking results, though.

http://www.batten.eu.org/~igb/HORSE.jpg

ian

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average income
and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars and just about
anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I bet that's changed now
the Tour is on ITV2 :-)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. You don't need a Wok On The Wall to receive
ITV2. However, I /did/ read yesterday that the AK47's used by "Insurgents"
in Iraq are mostly falling to bits, so it is not inconceivable that the
average AK47 user over there may have need of a Several in order to despatch
the Infidel efficiently.

<ob_cycling>
Former Olympic bicyclist and HPV record holder Freddy Markham has an AK47.
</ob_cycling>

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

Tony Raven said:

There is a guy who has designed a motorbike helmet which has an outer
skin that can slide over the inner skin for exactly the same reason.

Could have interesting consequences if it went through 180 degrees.

"Help!! I've gone blind!!!!"

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

Guy:

Quoted message said:

Very few people on
this NG have only one bike.

<puts hand up>

I've counted up all the different bikes I could want/need to account for
every situation and I reckon eight would be the optimum, but...

Quoted message said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average income

....I guess I'm not a 'proper' cyclist. 🙁

I keep talking about getting new bikes but it's mostly wishful thinking. But
I'm *definitely* getting a new hybrid soon for commuting/general purposes -
and I've worked out a way to justify the cost[1], so the wife has no reason
to veto the plan. 🙂

Quoted message said:

more than averagely likely to own houses, cars and just about anythign

else

Quoted message said:

apart from satellite TV - and I bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2

I would happily trade in the cost of a year's subscription to satellite TV
for a decent racing bike but the telly is a family thing whereas the bike
would be a me thing. In an either/or situation, family things come before me
things.

Not that any of this in any way supports the curious doctor's unusual
thesis.

d.

[1] based on the principle of cycling to reduce expenditure on train
tickets, plus, since I'd be using the bike for work-related purposes,
there's the bonus of claiming the cost of the bike as a business expense.

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr Curious said:

So that in their eyes, trying to argue with men in white coats
spouting "protect the children" nonsense puts you only one step
away from being a child murderer yourself. Witness the fuss over
MMR vaccines.

I think the moment you link the debate over helmets (which are
demonstrably useless in a large number of reputable studies, and
worthwhile in few reputablestudies), and for which the evidence of risk
compensation is large in a wide range of studies, with the row over MMR
(where there are no sizable studies, no replicating papers and massive
evidence that it's the cold fusion of the late 90s) you're headed into
nutter land. It's like our local healthfood co-operative, whose
excellent campaigning on transport, food and pollution is underminded by
the occasion burst of ``Flouridation is only done so that the chemical
industry can dump poisonous waste into our water'' craziness (note: I
live in Birmingham).

ian

Personally I think there is a lot of common ground.

MMR/Autism: Large number of studies involving whole populations show no
evidence that MMR causes autism or that there is any elevation in autism
in the population as a consequence of the strong increase in MMR
inoculation. Evidence for the link is based on small number of badly
flawed studies which have been picked up and inflated in the public
conciousness by the press and pressure groups.

Helmets: Large number of studies involving whole populations show no
evidence that helmets increase safety or that there is any increase in
safety in the population as a consequence of a strong increase in helmet
wearing, Evidence for the link is based on a small number of badly
flawed studies which have been picked up and inflated in the public
conciousness by the press and pressure groups.

Tony

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> anonymous coward <[email hidden]> writes:
> >
> > The way I resolve this problem is to wear a helmet 50% of the time.
> > I'm not sure that this is the best-thought-out solution, though.
> >
> Indeed, it depends which 50% of the time. As 100% of my head injuries
> requiring a hospital visit occurred when I was asleep, I'd recommend
> wearing one in bed.

Were you still in bed when you acquired your injuries, or did you end up
with the same problem as me? - there's no box for 'injuries sustained

while

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sleep walking' in the hospital form.

No, I was out bivouaccing and someone trod on it.

giggle :-)

(ok, it probably wasn't funny at the time, but...)

I was pretty livid at the time, as I'd not got enough food and I'd
slammed my finger in a car door and the reason my head had got trodden
on was that the other people who were meant to be looking after the 16
year olds one of whom had done it were actually sharing a bottle of
vodka with them. (One of whom has since accused me of being an
alcoholic, at a time when I was drinking in the order of one unit of
alcohol a month).*

But I laughed a few months later when I was larking around with some
friends and complained "I can't stand on my head" and quick as a flash
one of them replied "Yes, but $other_person can".

A

*I wouldn't have vented, but said person has just caused me to have to
make an unpleasant telephone call letting someone down, because she
promised things we couldn't deliver.

Ambrose Nankivell <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

(One of whom has since accused me of being an
alcoholic, at a time when I was drinking in the order of one unit of
alcohol a month)

Strangely enough, I've had a similar accusation levelled at me at a time
when I hadn't had a drink for over a year. They even made an effort to
remove my car keys when I was about to drive home. At this stage I think I
was less of a "social drinker" and more of a "social drunk", i.e. I could
have just as good a time as the people drinking around me whilst I was on
the fresh orange and lemonade.

Now I live in Australia I have had to up my drinking level and have just
finished a nice bottle of Cascade Premium - my third this week (which
represents an unusual peak in consumption).

Graeme

Quoted message said:

Gordon Bennet. Will someone tell me one way or another if it's good

to wear

Quoted message said:

helmets?

Undoubtedly, and they will do it on this newsgroup. In fact, if you
are lucky, more one person will tell you.

Quoted message said:

Every 'study' on helmets contradicts some other study on helmets.

What are

Quoted message said:

people meant to believe?

They are meant to believe what they are told. Now stop asking
questions, and start being a good consumer

Jeremy Parker

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Drew

(') said:

I'm intrigued - how can helmets be positively dangerous? Are you
suggesting they exacerbate injuries to the head?

Yes, they _can_. Whether, and how often, they _do_ is unknown. The
mechanism is increased effective head diameter leading to increased
rotational acceleration leading to rotational injury of the brain.

I suppose the only proven cases one way or another for helmet deaths
are when kids die by being strangled by the helmet strap, which
happens every so often. I suppose that could happento adults, too,
although I never heard of a case.

Jeremy Parker

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

Quoted message said:

Gordon Bennet. Will someone tell me one way or another if it's

good

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to wear helmets?

You should look on your helmet as an insurance policy. This is
literally true. A good fraction of the purchase price is, in fact,
essentially an insurance premium, although whether it's for your
benefit, or the manufacturer's, somewhat depends on your point of
view. Both really, I suppose.

The American legal system is famous. It is universally acknowledged
that if there is an accident that is somebody's fault, they should
pay compensation, although there are complications if culpability is
split between various parties. Anything that happens in the USA
always ends up happing in Britain too, in a more virulent form, and
we are already seeing this with lawsuits.

It is the duty of an American lawyer, acting for a client, to extract
the maximum amount of money from anyone handy. That might be the
duty of a British lawyer, too, especially if they are working on a
percentage.

Nowadays, as bike fatalities keep on happening, and more and more
cyclists are wearing helmets, more and more dead cyclists are
wearing helmets too. Helmets are meant to stop this happening, so a
dead, helmeted, cyclist does tend to indicate something wrong with
the helmet and/or its manufacturer. The remedy is obvious: sue.

This is an excellent tactic. Helmet makers are always very willing
to settle such cases, very generously, before they get to court,
provided you are willing to keep the details secret. Settling out of
court creates no precedent. A discussion with lawyers, doctors,
technical experts, and so on, in front of a judge, and the press and
public, of the merits (or not) of helmets is not something the
manufacturers welcome. Not only would it create a precedent, the
manufacturers, in their defence, would be compelled to argue that
helmets have always been known to be useless, and that the
advertisements have never claimed otherwise.

This legal undercurrent goes on all the time. Somebody has to pay
for it all, and if the helmet makers are to stay in business, that
can only be the helmet buyers. What fraction of the helmet purchase
price is your insurance premium is unknown. It is one of the most
closely guarded secrets of the industry. I seem to recall an article
in a US magazine estimating that a third of the price of a helmet was
the premium, but whether the author had accurate information, who
knows. Even if he was right then, things may have changed.

I suppose that if you own a helmet it's nice to know you have a paid
up insurance policy. Whether you will be much cheered when the time
comes to collect a payout, though, seems less certain..

Jeremy Parker

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:08:35 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

This is an excellent tactic. Helmet makers are always very willing
to settle such cases, very generously, before they get to court,
provided you are willing to keep the details secret. Settling out of
court creates no precedent. A discussion with lawyers, doctors,
technical experts, and so on, in front of a judge, and the press and
public, of the merits (or not) of helmets is not something the
manufacturers welcome. Not only would it create a precedent, the
manufacturers, in their defence, would be compelled to argue that
helmets have always been known to be useless, and that the
advertisements have never claimed otherwise.

LOL! I can't recall hearing that before, it's certainly a novel idea!

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Velvet said:

Actually, you know, I'm surprised there's not more cross-sport
discussion about this sort of thing - motorbikers, horse riders,
cyclists and climbers all experience some similar (and some very
different) things in accidents, and I can't help thinking that pooling
knowledge would help everyone.

You might get some rather odd looking results, though.

http://www.batten.eu.org/~igb/HORSE.jpg

ian

Hmmmm ;-)

--

Velvet

Tony Raven said:

What you do is your decision but if you are riding off road the helmet
does help prevent minor scratches and scrapes from branches etc..

Though I suspect a baseball cap would be nearly as good at this, and
better in all other ways.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Just zis Guy said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

This is an excellent tactic. Helmet makers are always very willing
to settle such cases, very generously, before they get to court,
provided you are willing to keep the details secret. Settling out of
court creates no precedent. A discussion with lawyers, doctors,
technical experts, and so on, in front of a judge, and the press and
public, of the merits (or not) of helmets is not something the
manufacturers welcome. Not only would it create a precedent, the
manufacturers, in their defence, would be compelled to argue that
helmets have always been known to be useless, and that the
advertisements have never claimed otherwise.

LOL! I can't recall hearing that before, it's certainly a novel idea!

And an opportunity, I'd say, if any bereaved relatives would like to
co-operate.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Colin McKenzie said:

Quoted message said:

What you do is your decision but if you are riding off road the helmet
does help prevent minor scratches and scrapes from branches etc..

Though I suspect a baseball cap would be nearly as good at this, and
better in all other ways.

I've clonked my (helmeted) head on tunnel entrances a couple of times.

ian