cycling links

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:05:52 GMT, Eric® <eric@hardknocks.edu> wrote in
message <MPG.1c136d17769780bd9898af@news.telus.net>:

>> You say. But helmets are not designed to protect against motor
>> vehicle impacts. Don't stop wearing it, but remember that if you are
>> hit by a car you can depend on it to this extent: not at all. Check
>> the CPSC and ISO standards if you don't believe me.

>The idea is that the helmet might help to protect me when my head hits
>the pavement. I can see pretty clearly that helmets are not designed to
>function in 'real world' situations, but that is all I've got at the
>moment.

Just as long as your head hits the pavement with an energy not more
than the equivalent of a fall from a stationary or slow-moving
bicycle, you'll be fine. Not that this kind of fall was ever going to
be life-threatening in the first place, of course :-)

What you have to remember is this: your helmet has no more protective
capacity than the foam packaging your computer came in, and probably
less as it is a good deal thinner. Think about how well your computer
would be likely to survive if it was balanced on the back of your bike
in the kind of impact you envisage. I find this image helps me to
remember what the manufacturers helpfully describe as "limited impact
protection".

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

Roberta Hatch

David Martin <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>"Roberta Hatch" <bhatch@luhar.net> wrote:

>> Let's say you're traveling at ten miles per hour (roughly 15 ft/sec),
>> you take a spill and your melon hits a sharp object, such as a curb or a
>> large rock, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

>Next time I'll fix the pannier so my shopping doesn't come loose.

>Hmm.. maybe we should try this one.. you are running for a train and slip on
>a pile of frozen vomit on the platform. ...

Maybe you should just stick to the subject at hand. Bicycles
and helemts, instead of trying to come up with something bogus as a
counterexample. For example: Outlawing bicycles will prevent all
injuries related to bicycle riding.

>> Take the test. All you have to do is have a pal wack you upside
>> the head with a piece of angle iron while you're wearing a helmet. Then
>> again without the helmet. Please report back after the test -- if you
>> can.

>Lets try this one.

Try another. Grow a brain before responding next time, stupid.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:32:19 +0000 (UTC), bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta
Hatch) wrote in message <cock13$ei5$1@blue.rahul.net>:

> You people are a barrel of laughs. You sound like motorcyclists
>that make try and make the claim that not only helmets do not help prevent
>injuries, but actually cause them.

Perish the thought. Just because motorcyclist injuries trended worse
than other road users following compulsion in the UK that surely
cannot mean they do not work, can it?

> I have yet to see anyone make a claim that a helmet prevents all
>injuries. Only that it's added protection.

Indeed. They prevent a large proportion of trivial injuries, and the
evidence says that their effect on serious and fatal injuries is small
and of indeterminate sign: i.e. they make them either slightly worse
or slightly better. Because crash energy goes with speed squared, a
device designed to protect against a 10mph impact will likely be
completely ineffective soon after.

That's one reason why whole population figures, which are based on
national collection of serious and fatal injury data, never show any
benefit from increasing helmet use.

> Let's say you're traveling at ten miles per hour (roughly 15 ft/sec),
>you take a spill and your melon hits a sharp object, such as a curb or a
>large rock, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

And if you are not wearing the helmet, what are the chances that you
will be that bit more careful and avoid the rock in the first place?
Or that you will ride slower? Crash energy varies with the square of
speed, remember.

> Take the test. All you have to do is have a pal wack you upside
>the head with a piece of angle iron while you're wearing a helmet. Then
>again without the helmet. Please report back after the test -- if you
>can.

Oh how original, nobody's ever erected that straw man before. Oh,
wait...

Now try this: would you let your "pal" whack you on the head with the
piece of angle iron if you were not wearing a helmet? I sure as hell
wouldn't! It's called risk compensation, and its been documented even
in children.

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

David Hansen

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:38:46 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote this:-

> Ya'll may as well face it. Sooner or later, wearing a bicycle
>helmet is going to be mandatory this country. Maybe even mandatory
>'lights on' too.

Given the large number of groups which the troll who started this
thread posted to, a definition of "this country" may be difficult.
As for mandatory lights, some of these countries have had such
requirements for a long time.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On 28 Nov 2004 06:54:18 -0800 someone who may be
jwvoeller@charter.net (Jim) wrote this:-

>Society as a whole ends up responsible for unsafe behavior. I don't
>like knowing I end up paying the price by way of higher insurance,
>medical bills and charges for social services for individuals who do
>not engage in prudent behavior.

Logically you must want people to wear helmets when using the
stairs, which is a far more dangerous activity than cycling.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 28 Nov 2004 06:54:18 -0800, jwvoeller@charter.net (Jim) wrote in
message <fd40af06.0411280654.3888deaf@posting.google.com>:

>Society as a whole ends up responsible for unsafe behavior. I don't
>like knowing I end up paying the price by way of higher insurance,
>medical bills and charges for social services for individuals who do
>not engage in prudent behavior.

Quite so. All those people who don't cycle are a drain on society and
should be forced by law to use their bikes (Hillman, 1996).

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

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:38:46 +0000 (UTC), bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta
Hatch) wrote in message <cocntm$hhs$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>Motorcycle helmets help prevent both
>head and neck injuries.

Er, not quite. There is good evidence that rigid chin bars exacerbate
neck injuries.

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

Tony Raven

Roberta Hatch wrote:
>
>>Hmm.. maybe we should try this one.. you are running for a train and slip on
>>a pile of frozen vomit on the platform. ...
>
>
> Maybe you should just stick to the subject at hand. Bicycles
> and helemts, instead of trying to come up with something bogus as a
> counterexample. For example: Outlawing bicycles will prevent all
> injuries related to bicycle riding.
>

Its a valid question. Per mile and per hour you are more likely to
suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist. Yet you don't
seem to be calling for helmets to be worn by pedestrians even though
they are at greater risk than cyclists. Why not?

Tony

Tony Raven

Roberta Hatch wrote:
> May I suggest a full coverage helmet
>

Its called a car.

Tony

JLB

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2004 06:54:18 -0800, jwvoeller@charter.net (Jim) wrote in
> message <fd40af06.0411280654.3888deaf@posting.google.com>:
>
>
>>Society as a whole ends up responsible for unsafe behavior. I don't
>>like knowing I end up paying the price by way of higher insurance,
>>medical bills and charges for social services for individuals who do
>>not engage in prudent behavior.
>
>
> Quite so. All those people who don't cycle are a drain on society and
> should be forced by law to use their bikes (Hillman, 1996).

Yes, and to discourage irresponsible riding and getting involved in
accidents that are such a burden on society, helmets should be illegal.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Robert Broughton

Eric® wrote:

> Robert Broughton clicked his heels, waved his fist wildly in the air,
> and sang the 'Internationale' while writing:
>
>> What you will soon learn, Henry, is that when discussion of bicycle
>> helmets turns up in newsgroups, it has nothing to do with bicycling, and
>> certainly not bicycle safety. This is just about Losertarian philosophy.
>> You'll also discover that because Losertarians have such a weak cause,
>> the only way they can support it is to tell lies and make things up.
>
> What has your obsession with "Losertarians" as you call them got to do
> with cycling?
>

As much as Losertarian philosophy has to do with cycling.

> Pigs can't fly - nor can they cycle.
>
> You've never posted anything on-topic to any cycling newsgroup.
>

"You'll also discover that because Losertarians have such a weak cause, the
only way they can support it is to tell lies and make things up." - Me,
Nov. 27, 2004

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Not all carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans."
- Todd Benson, mailto:tbenson37@cox.net , Oct. 24, 2004

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:59:05 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
wrote in message <30uau9F33b2vfU2@uni-berlin.de>:

>Its a valid question. Per mile and per hour you are more likely to
>suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist. Yet you don't
>seem to be calling for helmets to be worn by pedestrians even though
>they are at greater risk than cyclists.

I think we may only be looking at the tip of the iceberg here -
pedestrian injuries which do not involve motor traffic will normally
be recorded as trips and falls, which vastly outnumber every other
source of accidental head injury.

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

JohnB

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Roberta Hatch wrote:
> > May I suggest a full coverage helmet
>
> Its called a car.

....and that still doesn't work given the number of head injuries
occupants suffer.

John B

Joe Keenan

<<MAJOR SNIPPAGE>> I'll leave the debate about "helmet laws" to the
debaters. We all have opinions and arbr is for surea a place to
share them. My opinion isn't about mandatory helmet laws, it's about
what might help. Given that, my opinion is that if something (lights
at night, reflectors, bright colors, gloves, rear view mirror, yadda,
yadda) might lessen my chances of injury or minimize injury, that's
good enough for me. Operative word: Might. Slow Joe Recumbo << MAJOR
SNIPPAGE>>

Yo Tony, JohnB, David,& Guy

Yikes. Put razors on your cycling shoes and jump all over me. I'm not
trying to change your opinion, but your posts are trying to change
mine. Look at the above....I'm not arguing for or against you or
anyone else wearing a helmet. I'm saying that I believe it "might"
lessen or minimize injury to me. That's all. It works for me.

But you did make me think of another example. Reading all these posts
is both fun and informative. By the way, I'm for whichever makes you
feel good.

I'd like to hear your counter arguements (and yes..I'm sure willing to
listen to the other side) about how not wearing a helmet would have
helped me in this one.

Here's what happened to me:

Cycling along at a pretty good clip.
Hit a rock which was almost impossible to see. (For this scenario,
assume you couldn't see the rock even if you tried, and you really
couldn't. Know key lighting? Bright brights? Dark Darks? Was looking
at the road because of debris seen earlier, and never saw the
"camoflaged" rock. And I was looking at the spot where the rock was.)
See it at last minute. Try to avoid it. Don't.
Large enough rock to cause an endo.
Landed on the side of my head (top right skull portion) and right
shoulder.
Slid, rubbing the shirt and much skin off my shoulder.
The slide also wore away the plastic on the helmet and much of the
foam.

With what scenarios "sans helmet" do I not come up with severe road
rash on my scalp and side of my face? I've tried to look at it from
your viewpoint, and I still come up with major face plant and road
rash sans helmet.

Cheers

Slow Joe Recumbo