Yet another post about plastic hats

[7@m3 G33k]

David Damerell wrote:
>
> When did you repeat the experiment with a control unhelmeted head?

I suggest you ask my friend who was saved by her helmet this question.
Then we could do some research into how well the human skull is
protected by a smug self-satisfied attitude when pummelled by a stirrup
pump in the hands of a female cyclist not known to suffer fools gladly.

 

[7@m3 G33k]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2:35 pm, David Damerell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
> <blah>

Well by innocently posting here I have learnt a few things about bike
lids and places to look for more info and I've also been reminded of
what a pit of vipers parts of usenet become when inhabited by cliques of
people who like to reinforce their feelings of collective superiority by
all turning on heretics who express contrary opinions.

If you're happy to just be 'right' in your superior knowledge then carry
on, if however you think your opinions might benefit others perhaps
you'll encourage people to post here and discuss things by not accusing
them of trolling or being generally unworthy in your enlightened presence.

Ian

 

[marc]

7@m3 G33k wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>> When did you repeat the experiment with a control unhelmeted head?
>
> I suggest you ask my friend who was saved by her helmet this question.
> Then we could do some research into how well the human skull is
> protected by a smug self-satisfied attitude when pummelled by a stirrup
> pump in the hands of a female cyclist not known to suffer fools gladly.

I would suggest that a cycling helment would be better suited to this
use than to cycling.
Query. Your friend doesn't suffer fools yet relies on single instances
of unmeasured data , how then does she decide who is/is not a fool?

 

[Peter Clinch]

7@m3 G33k wrote:

> Well by innocently posting here I have learnt a few things about bike
> lids and places to look for more info and I've also been reminded of
> what a pit of vipers parts of usenet become when inhabited by cliques of
> people who like to reinforce their feelings of collective superiority by
> all turning on heretics who express contrary opinions.

That may seem the way it is from your point of view, but see it
from the other side, where it's a bit like someone who's been told
the US are Doing The Right Thing in Iraq shows up in Baghdad and
asks why everyone isn't pleased about star spangled banners.

We're in a position where well meaning idiots are trying to force
the hand of public health policy in a way that at best will not
help (and we know it won't because we've seen it not help
everywhere it's been tried) and at worst will cost lives and will
very probably damage cycling. On top of that there really are
bampots who'll turn up safe in the knowledge it's a sensitive issue
and kick the ant-hill, just because they like to.

> If you're happy to just be 'right' in your superior knowledge then carry
> on, if however you think your opinions might benefit others perhaps
> you'll encourage people to post here and discuss things by not accusing
> them of trolling or being generally unworthy in your enlightened presence.

Didn't seem to stop you arguing back at equally full force, as if
you were right in /your/ superior knowledge though. Think about
why helmets aren't heartily endorsed here... it /might/ be
Groupthink and mutual masturbation, but OTOH it might be a lot of
folk have expended considerable research effort finding out for
themselves, and are partly responsible for the wealth of contrary
information you can find with a quick google or urc archive search,
which you didn't seem to think to do. It isn't ganging up if lots
of people tell you're probably wrong independently.

Sorry if you're feeling maligned, but please don't forget it works
both ways.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Martin Dann]

7@m3 G33k wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> There is that famous piece of american research that shows that
>> wearing a cycle helmet reduces the chances of leg injuries by a
>> significant amount.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131

>> There is Dr Walkers research that drivers drive closer to cyclists
>> wearing a MFH, than to those not wearing a MFH.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article637031.ece
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

>> There is research into risk compensation that shows wearing a helmet
>> makes you take more risks.

http://tinyurl.com/3dbleo



> Interesting stuff - any pointers as to where these may be found on-line?

www.cyclehelmets.org for general stuff, and check google
groups for the rest of the helmet debate.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:
> > Works of the devil are fine, he usually has all the best tunes after all.
>
> ... and based upon the number of challenging hill climbs called "The
> Devil's Elbow" (or similar), it would seem that He has all the best hills
> as well?

quite a fun one nr my folks called the fidlers elbow, though there is
lovely bridge in the gorge called devil's bridge which is quite a
breathtaking place.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Tony Raven]

"7@m3 G33k" <[email protected]> wrote in news:ZnVFi.13223$c_1.6684
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> I suggest you ask my friend who was saved by her helmet this question.
> Then we could do some research into how well the human skull is
> protected by a smug self-satisfied attitude when pummelled by a stirrup
> pump in the hands of a female cyclist not known to suffer fools gladly.

The human skull is quite well protected on its own. In fact it takes 7-10
times the energy a helmet is designed to cope with to break a human skull.

As for the "helmet saved my life"™ try reading
http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 because it almost certainly didn't.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Peter Clinch]

7@m3 G33k wrote:

> That's a little more like the tone that I would have expected Pete,
> thanks. Three points I would make:

<snip fair points>

And thanks for that too. urc is IME and HO one of the better and more
useful bits of usenet, and it is worth sticking with even if it puts
your nose out of joint once in a while. You're not the first to have
found out about helmets the hard way (I did too, some time ago), and I
doubt you'll be the last, but the folk who frequent here are by and
large Good Eggs (no TrollB, I don't mean you) and it can be a goldmine
of useful cycling info that's worth sticking with.

(oh, welcome to urc! ;-))

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting 7@m3 G33k <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>When did you repeat the experiment with a control unhelmeted head?
>I suggest you ask my friend who was saved by her helmet this question.

You mean "your friend who guessed she was saved by her helmet, but has no
evidence".

Just because the control experiment is hard to do doesn't mean it isn't
necessary if you want to learn anything.

>Then we could do some research into how well the human skull is
>protected by a smug self-satisfied attitude when pummelled by a stirrup
>pump in the hands of a female cyclist not known to suffer fools gladly.

Why does she put up with you, then?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Potmos, September.

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "7@m3 G33k"
<[email protected]> gently breathed:

>Damn...there I go talking rot again. However not as much rot as:
>"cycling helmets offer no significant protection".

The rates of head injury risk are roughly the same for cycling and
walking. Do you wear a helmet when you go for a walk?

The risks of head injury are vastly greater for car drivers, a
significant number of motor vehicle deaths are caused by head injuries.
Do you think all drivers and car passengers should be compelled to wear
helmets?

>A friend of mine recently went over the handlebars after the cyclist
>in-front braked and wobbled without warning. She landed on her head,
>shoulder and hip: badly bruised hip, hairline fracture to the
>upper-arm, helmet in two pieces and head completely unscathed.

That just proves the strength of the human skull, which evolved over
millions of years to protect the brain from impact damage. A broken
helmet has failed, and proves nothing.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Mark W]

On 12 Sep, 20:40, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> 7@m3 G33k wrote:
> > Martin Dann wrote:
>
> >> There is that famous piece of american research that shows that
> >> wearing a cycle helmet reduces the chances of leg injuries by a
> >> significant amount.
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131
>
> >> There is Dr Walkers research that drivers drive closer to cyclists
> >> wearing a MFH, than to those not wearing a MFH.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...k/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
>
> >> There is research into risk compensation that shows wearing a helmet
> >> makes you take more risks.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dbleo
>
> > Interesting stuff - any pointers as to where these may be found on-line?
>
> www.cyclehelmets.orgfor general stuff, and check google
> groups for the rest of the helmet debate.

There is also one risk not mentioned here, that I found to my cost
after an "off" last winter (resulting in having some glue stick the
skin back together on the face and chin area), for not wearing a
helmet.

That is the risk of not getting any sympathy of the slightly-and-
deliciously-plump-strawberry-blonde-with-green-eyes-and-big-friendly-
smile New Zealand girl at work - who, coming from NZ where apparently
helmets ARE compulsory, is convinced that anyone who doesn't wear one
is an idiot. The fact that the damage was on the chin cut no ice. :O(

As it happens, I do wear a helmet. I don't think it will save my life
in an unscheduled intervention with a car, or hitting a tree in a fast
descent or anything like that, but simply for similar reasons as
another poster mentioned here - ie the minor knocks, scrapes and bumps
and the intermittent feet-not-disconnecting-from-pedal offs that seem
to infest my cycling. Plasters would cope with most damage from these
- Tesco do a very nice small first aid kit for a fiver by the way, but
scalp wounds are difficult to plaster (no I am NOT shaving it off !)
and do bleed so, and cycling back with a headache is most unpleasant.
Sony are prepared believe that half an inch of polystyrene will help
reduce minor impact damage and so am I ... :O)

As a postscript - assuming the above info re the NZ compulsory wearing
is correct - does anyone know of any good stats from this part of the
world, given that our antipodean cousins are not renown for their risk
avoidance ?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Mark W <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 20:40, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As it happens, I do wear a helmet. I don't think it will save my life
> in an unscheduled intervention with a car, or hitting a tree in a fast
> descent or anything like that, but simply for similar reasons as
> another poster mentioned here - ie the minor knocks, scrapes and bumps
> and the intermittent feet-not-disconnecting-from-pedal offs that seem
> to infest my cycling.

The trouble with this logic is the question of what if a helmet does
increase the risk of serious brain injury. Do you really want to
obtain a reduction in the risk of minor scrape at the cost of an
increased chance of being a vegetable for the rest of your life?

At what level of relative risk do you trade? It's pretty much certain
that a helmet _will_ prevent at least one minor scrape, but what if in
doing so it increases your chance of neck-down paralysis by a factor
of 2? Of 10? Of 10,000?

> As a postscript - assuming the above info re the NZ compulsory wearing
> is correct - does anyone know of any good stats from this part of the
> world, given that our antipodean cousins are not renown for their risk
> avoidance ?

It is correct. Adult helmet use basically doubled pretty much
overnight. Head injury rate was unaffected.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Tony Raven]

Mark W <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Sony are prepared believe that half an inch of polystyrene will help
> reduce minor impact damage and so am I ... :O)
>

I think its more to do with preventing awkward shaped objects from rattling
around loose in a rectangular shaped box.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

Mark W <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> As a postscript - assuming the above info re the NZ compulsory wearing
> is correct - does anyone know of any good stats from this part of the
> world, given that our antipodean cousins are not renown for their risk
> avoidance ?
>

Yes, and its not in favour of helmets. Nigel Perry's paper is a readable
introduction:
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/recreation/cycling/conference/2001/HeadsandHa
rdSurfacesPresentation_Perry.pdf

There are papers such as Scuffhams which claim a benefit but in claiming
a reduction in the number of head injuries they omitted to look at the
numbers cycling which also decreased when helmets became manadatory
making the individual risk the same or greater.

Of course no-one has been able to answer the question there that as
studies show that car occupant helmets would save 17 times as many lives
as the highest claims for bicycle helmets, why aren't car helmets
mandatory too?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Mark W:
> As a postscript - assuming the above info re the NZ compulsory wearing
> is correct - does anyone know of any good stats from this part of the
> world, given that our antipodean cousins are not renown for their risk
> avoidance ?


The executive summary is what Ian said; if you want more detail,

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1022

is a good place to go. Bear in mind that there'll be no reliable stats
relating directly to minor injuries, if that's what you want a helmet
for.


With reference to the green-eyed blonde, I'd judge that wearing a helmet
to stop her thinking you're an idiot is an irrational and unnecessary
measure. SWMBO has occasionally thought I'm an idiot over the past
fourteen years, helmet or not; hasn't done us any harm.


--
Mark, UK
"That's 'Party Line' by Abbreviated Sealing, and of course whenever I
criticize the name of a band somebody will write in and say 'Of course
what you don't realize is that it's a quote from Jean Jacques Pissoir's
"Vortex - A Threnody"?', and it may well be so.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Ian Smith <[email protected]>typed


> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Mark W <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12 Sep, 20:40, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > As it happens, I do wear a helmet. I don't think it will save my life
> > in an unscheduled intervention with a car, or hitting a tree in a fast
> > descent or anything like that, but simply for similar reasons as
> > another poster mentioned here - ie the minor knocks, scrapes and bumps
> > and the intermittent feet-not-disconnecting-from-pedal offs that seem
> > to infest my cycling.

> The trouble with this logic is the question of what if a helmet does
> increase the risk of serious brain injury. Do you really want to
> obtain a reduction in the risk of minor scrape at the cost of an
> increased chance of being a vegetable for the rest of your life?

There is also the risk of neck injury, which hasn't been properly
explored by the helmet pundits. I believe a head with a larger effective
diameter could cause more leverage and injury to the neck. A very high
neck fracture is probably instantly fatal (unlike a moderate brain
injury). Spinal injury does not usually make for a good quality of life.

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

 

[burtthebike]

>
> There is also one risk not mentioned here, that I found to my cost
> after an "off" last winter (resulting in having some glue stick the
> skin back together on the face and chin area), for not wearing a
> helmet.
>
> That is the risk of not getting any sympathy of the slightly-and-
> deliciously-plump-strawberry-blonde-with-green-eyes-and-big-friendly-
> smile New Zealand girl at work - who, coming from NZ where apparently
> helmets ARE compulsory, is convinced that anyone who doesn't wear one
> is an idiot. The fact that the damage was on the chin cut no ice. :O(


Whilst washing the cut to friend's knee, one of the party, not tongue in
cheek, was heard to complain that she should have been wearing a helmet. Of
course, if you're gullible enough to believe TRT, you might think that a
helmet would protect your leg.

 

[burtthebike]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark W <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> As a postscript - assuming the above info re the NZ compulsory wearing
>> is correct - does anyone know of any good stats from this part of the
>> world, given that our antipodean cousins are not renown for their risk
>> avoidance ?
>>
>
> Yes, and its not in favour of helmets. Nigel Perry's paper is a readable
> introduction:
> http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/recreation/cycling/conference/2001/HeadsandHa
> rdSurfacesPresentation_Perry.pdf
>
> There are papers such as Scuffhams which claim a benefit but in claiming
> a reduction in the number of head injuries they omitted to look at the
> numbers cycling which also decreased when helmets became manadatory
> making the individual risk the same or greater.
>
> Of course no-one has been able to answer the question there that as
> studies show that car occupant helmets would save 17 times as many lives
> as the highest claims for bicycle helmets, why aren't car helmets
> mandatory too?

Many thanks for the reference to the paper Tony, v enlightening! I
particularly liked the bit about the risk of other causes of death, like
tripping and poisoning.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Whilst washing the cut to friend's knee, one of the party, not
> tongue in cheek, was heard to complain that she should have been
> wearing a helmet. Of course, if you're gullible enough to believe
> TRT, you might think that a helmet would protect your leg.

The A&E doctor assessing the damage to my leg and thumb asked if I was
wearing a helmet when I was knocked off my bike and offered the
opinion "naught naughty" when I said I was not. She declined to
discuss the topic further.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|