Sorry, hemlets again

"Jeremy Parker" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

"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.

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Parker

I've seen an adult horse rider with a fractured larynx after a fall
whilst wearing a helmet though...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

in message <[email hidden]>, Jeremy Parker

(') said:

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.

A cycling helmet comprises the following parts: a thin plastic shell,
much lighter and thinner than a disposable picnic plate which you can
buy for fifty pence; a piece of moulded polystyrene foam, of a slightly
higher quality than that which is normally used in the packaging of
electric kettles, radios, toasters and other consumer goods which are
sold - all in, including the kettle/radio/toaster/whatever - for under
twenty quid, so the price of the packaging can't exceed a couple of
quid; and some nylon webbing and buckles that you could buy retail for
another couple of quid. And, err, that's pretty much it. Another piece
of molded polythene forming an adjustable skull band, maybe twenty
pence. Some plastic toggles to secure the straps, maybe a couple of
pence each. Total, at most a fiver.

Then, of course, there's packaging, marketing, conformance testing, and
so on. And my helmet has a free-replacement-if-damaged-in-an-accident
warranty. But when you look at the prices (minimum about 25 quid;
maximum, over a hundred) it's a _very_ profitable business. No wonder
they're so keen to promote it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:56:49 +0100, "Burning_Ranger"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

burt said:

Another letter in the Evening Post about cycle helmets, reproduced
below, with my response after. If anyone else feels like writing to
the editor for publishing on their letters page, feel free.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144961&command=newPage

<SNIP>

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

If you are cycling at up to 7mph, and fall from your bike in such a
way as to strike the ground, your helmet will protect you* from some
head injuries.

(* As long as you do not fall in such a way that you would have, in
any event, tucked your head in out the way but were prevented from
doing so by the extra bulk of your helmet.

Or so long as you do not fall in such a way as to allow the extra size
of the helmet cause your head to be twisted around the axis of the
neck.)

If you are struck by a motor vehicle, or are scooting down a hill at a
great rate of knots, a helmet will not protect you (and the
exarcebating effect on helmets on torsional blows is increased).

All of this is beside the effect helmets can have on your behaviour -
feeling safer will likely lead you to take greater risks - and on the
amount of stinging blinding sweat that will run into your eyes as you
cycle.

Quoted message said:

Every 'study' on helmets contradicts some other study on helmets. What are
people meant to believe?

Believe what you like. But remember, even the /most/ stringent bicyle
helmet safety standard guards against falls from a bike at up to 7mph,
which do not involve another vehicle.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:12:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message 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

How cunning - using a speed-limited version of a horse, to comply with
a bicycle helmet's 7mph limit!

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:21:22 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message 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

The Economist, May 13th 2004, "Crash-test dummies"

Unfortunately, a pay-per-view web-page

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:23:33 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

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.

I've started cycling with a woolly hat on - I figure it'll do about
the same job of mnor scrape prevention, without the head-size
increase, or giving me 'courage for my head'.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Simon Brooke said:

But when you look at the prices (minimum about 25 quid;
maximum, over a hundred) it's a _very_ profitable business.

And the difference between the cheap ones and the expensive ones is the
expensive ones have more holes in so use less materials. I hear air is
expensive these days though.

Tony

Much more important than hemlet is bright colour, in my recent
experience.
I was pedalling along the Kendal by-pass on a hot sunny weekday and
getting alarmed by speed and closeness of passing traffic. Van mirror
whisked pass v close to my ear - just the right size and height to bat
your head right off.
Couldn't do anything about it until the next exit so I stopped and
changed into bright yellow rain top instead of navy T shirt.
The difference was immediate and obvious, it was as though everyone
was allowing an extra metre or more, or delaying overtaking until
there was plenty of room rather than squeezing past close to my elbow,
and felt much safer.

Drivers react automatically to bright yellow - it could be cops, or
workman etc - familiar objects to avoid, but a dull looking cyclist
requires a moments thought, perhaps not a long enough moment,
especially for tired drivers on autopilot.
Are there any stats about safety/visibility? I'm convinced that it is
a much more important than helmets as an effective safety measure.
There might even be some justification for making bright yellow tops
compulsory on main roads.

cheers

Jacob

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

No the AK47 analogy rests on the fact that relatively low level
and yet robust technology i.e the AK47 or kalashnikov i.e the bicycle
in the hands of the many, may well have infinitely greater utility
than less robust more complex technology such as the higher specced
F16 rifle i.e the automobile, in the hands of the few. Given the very
real posssibility of impending gridlock etc. meaning jams in both cases.
Bicycles represent that potential. The better off will all be stuck in
their cars in traffic jams while the chavs (Social Classes D&E's to you)
will be unearthing all the old bikes from their sheds. And they're
all totally unregulated don't forget.

Quoted message said:

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
:-)

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

Load of questionable assumptions there. But what the heck, lets make
hay while the sun shines.

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so vigorously
contested. They made a positive choice to move straight from their cars
onto bikes.

Curious

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

Much more important than hemlet is bright colour, in my recent
experience.
I was pedalling along the Kendal by-pass on a hot sunny weekday and
getting alarmed by speed and closeness of passing traffic. Van mirror
whisked pass v close to my ear - just the right size and height to bat
your head right off.
Couldn't do anything about it until the next exit so I stopped and
changed into bright yellow rain top instead of navy T shirt.
The difference was immediate and obvious, it was as though everyone
was allowing an extra metre or more, or delaying overtaking until
there was plenty of room rather than squeezing past close to my elbow,
and felt much safer.

Drivers react automatically to bright yellow - it could be cops, or
workman etc - familiar objects to avoid, but a dull looking cyclist
requires a moments thought, perhaps not a long enough moment,
especially for tired drivers on autopilot.

Quoted message said:

Are there any stats about safety/visibility? I'm convinced that it is
a much more important than helmets as an effective safety measure.
There might even be some justification for making bright yellow tops
compulsory on main roads.

While your general point is valid - the more visible cyclists make
themselves the less likely they are to be hit by inattentive
drivers on autopilot - you're overlooking two things.

All that compulsion would achieve, assuming such a measure was
practical which is doubtful, would be to simply deter some people
from cycling. While some cyclists already choose to wear floursecent
sam brown belts, vests or whatever, and turn themselves into veritable
christmas trees, others clearly choose not to do so.

Part of the reason may simply be pride in appearence, or seeking
to maintain their dignity. While the rest of the reason may be that
motorists would notice cyclists readily enough, if the Courts imposed
more appropriate penalties for motorists who kill or injure cyclists
through inattention or carelessness.

It isn't the fault of cyclists that so many of them are being
killed or injured on our roads. Its often the fault of motorists who
are breaking the existing laws. We don't need any new laws. Just proper
enforcement and possible strengthening and redrafting of the laws which
already exist.

But you're possibly right, that more publicity should indeed be given
to the question of bright colours and visiblity, thus allowing
cyclists to make a more informed choice should they wish to do so.

Curious
....

Quoted message said:

cheers

Jacob

Gawnsoft said:

Believe what you like. But remember, even the /most/ stringent bicyle
helmet safety standard guards against falls from a bike at up to 7mph,
which do not involve another vehicle.

Do not be fooled, though. If compulsion comes in, and injury rates
don't go down, the loudest calls will be for stronger (and hotter)
helmets, not for repeal of the law.

I bet this is already happening in Australia and NZ.

Colin McKenzie

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

Reply to Gawnsoft

Quoted message said:

All of this is beside the effect helmets can have on your behaviour -
feeling safer will likely lead you to take greater risks

I'll never forget that bloke who posted here a few months back via
cyclingforums, who said along-the-lines-of "I used to do 70kph
downhills in the Alps years ago - I feel faint now, when I think I did
that without a helmet!"

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Terry D <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bU9Kc.96$sT5.52@newsfe5-
win.ntli.net:

Quoted message said:

I thought the idea of a stealth
fighter was that it shouldn't be able to show off? :-)

Maybe it was trying to disguise itself as one of the Red Arrows? :-)

Graeme

jacob said:

Much more important than hemlet is bright colour, in my recent
experience.
I was pedalling along the Kendal by-pass on a hot sunny weekday and
getting alarmed by speed and closeness of passing traffic. Van mirror
whisked pass v close to my ear - just the right size and height to bat
your head right off.
Couldn't do anything about it until the next exit so I stopped and
changed into bright yellow rain top instead of navy T shirt.
The difference was immediate and obvious, it was as though everyone
was allowing an extra metre or more, or delaying overtaking until
there was plenty of room rather than squeezing past close to my elbow,
and felt much safer.

Drivers react automatically to bright yellow - it could be cops, or
workman etc - familiar objects to avoid, but a dull looking cyclist
requires a moments thought, perhaps not a long enough moment,
especially for tired drivers on autopilot.
Are there any stats about safety/visibility? I'm convinced that it is
a much more important than helmets as an effective safety measure.
There might even be some justification for making bright yellow tops
compulsory on main roads.

cheers

Jacob

Some time ago I wrote a piece on the subject of stealth vehicles, you
may wish to read it. The piece (quite short) can be found on;

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton/stealth.htm

On the same topic, as I was driving from Guildford to Exeter on
Thursday, I happened to see a rather odd looking aircraft doing some
crazy aerobatic manoeuvers at a very low altitude. I think it was one of
those 'Stealth Fighter' thingies. I thought the idea of a stealth
fighter was that it shouldn't be able to show off? :-)

For those among you who may be thinking I have possibly went nuts, we
saw some adverts for the Farnborough Air Show at roughly the same time.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:07:46 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I've started cycling with a woolly hat on - I figure it'll do about
the same job of mnor scrape prevention, without the head-size
increase, or giving me 'courage for my head'.

Is this a good time to repeat my "knitted acrylic balaclava saved my
life" anecdote?

Thought not.

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Then, of course, there's packaging, marketing, conformance testing, and
so on. And my helmet has a free-replacement-if-damaged-in-an-accident
warranty. But when you look at the prices (minimum about 25 quid;
maximum, over a hundred) it's a _very_ profitable business. No wonder
they're so keen to promote it.

Don't forget the cost of funding all those studies...

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:48:47 +0100, "Dr Curious"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so vigorously
contested. They made a positive choice to move straight from their cars
onto bikes.

Ah, Curious has finally made the connection: they were never likely to
use the buses in the first place, so the idea that they uniquely have
cost the bus company a fare is an abstract and unlikely proposition.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr Curious said:

F16 rifle i.e the automobile, in the hands of the few. Given the very

The F16 is a single engined supersonic fighter. I suggest you mean that
M16, aka Armalite, rifle, chambered in 5.56x45, designed by Eugene
Stoner.

ian

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so
vigorously contested. They made a positive choice to move straight
from their cars onto bikes.

This is the most arrant nonsense. I bought my first car when I was
thirty-nine; up until then my bikes had been my primary mode of
personal transport. So far from moving 'straight from cars onto bikes'
I moved straight from, errm, walking onto bikes. I suspect that I'm in
something of a minority here, but plenty of cyclists have never owned a
car.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Much more important than hemlet is bright colour, in my recent
experience.
I was pedalling along the Kendal by-pass on a hot sunny weekday and
getting alarmed by speed and closeness of passing traffic. Van mirror
whisked pass v close to my ear - just the right size and height to bat
your head right off.
Couldn't do anything about it until the next exit so I stopped and
changed into bright yellow rain top instead of navy T shirt.
The difference was immediate and obvious, it was as though everyone
was allowing an extra metre or more, or delaying overtaking until
there was plenty of room rather than squeezing past close to my elbow,
and felt much safer.

Drivers react automatically to bright yellow - it could be cops, or
workman etc - familiar objects to avoid, but a dull looking cyclist
requires a moments thought, perhaps not a long enough moment,
especially for tired drivers on autopilot.

Quoted message said:

Are there any stats about safety/visibility? I'm convinced that it is
a much more important than helmets as an effective safety measure.
There might even be some justification for making bright yellow tops
compulsory on main roads.

While your general point is valid - the more visible cyclists make
themselves the less likely they are to be hit by inattentive
drivers on autopilot - you're overlooking two things.

All that compulsion would achieve, assuming such a measure was
practical which is doubtful, would be to simply deter some people
from cycling. While some cyclists already choose to wear floursecent
sam brown belts, vests or whatever, and turn themselves into veritable
christmas trees, others clearly choose not to do so.

Part of the reason may simply be pride in appearence, or seeking
to maintain their dignity. While the rest of the reason may be that
motorists would notice cyclists readily enough, if the Courts imposed
more appropriate penalties for motorists who kill or injure cyclists
through inattention or carelessness.

It isn't the fault of cyclists that so many of them are being
killed or injured on our roads. Its often the fault of motorists who
are breaking the existing laws. We don't need any new laws. Just proper
enforcement and possible strengthening and redrafting of the laws which
already exist.

But you're possibly right, that more publicity should indeed be given
to the question of bright colours and visiblity, thus allowing
cyclists to make a more informed choice should they wish to do so.

Curious

I agree in general but I meant that if anything was to be made
compulsory bright colour should rate above helmets as a life saver. I
don't wear a helmet but I do try to wear bright yellow - and it's less
of an imposition or deterrent to cycling imho.
Cyclists do have some responsibility for their own safety and car
drivers are obliged to have working lights, brakes etc - they aren't
permitted to make informed (or ill-informed) choices over these
details.

cheers

Jacob