Yet another post about plastic hats

[DavidR[_2_]]

Since a poster calling himself Dave R has given the opinion that helmets
are a good idea, I want to put on record that this other poster called
DavidR is a non-believer.

(I'm the I-don't-recommend-drophandlebars poster, though).

[7@m3 G33k]

DavidR wrote:
> Since a poster calling himself Dave R has given the opinion that helmets
> are a good idea, I want to put on record that this other poster called
> DavidR is a non-believer.
>
> (I'm the I-don't-recommend-drophandlebars poster, though).
>
>

Hmmm...so helmets and drops are a no-no? Next you'll be saying pneumatic
tyres are the work of the devil! :D

Ian

[DavidR[_2_]]

"7@m3 G33k" > wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> Since a poster calling himself Dave R has given the opinion that helmets
>> are a good idea, I want to put on record that this other poster called
>> DavidR is a non-believer.
>>
>> (I'm the I-don't-recommend-drophandlebars poster, though).
>
> Hmmm...so helmets and drops are a no-no? Next you'll be saying
> pneumatic tyres are the work of the devil! :D

If you insist. Pneumatic tyres are the work of the devil...
....the devil's work isn't all bad then.

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as DavidR
> gently breathed:
>"7@m3 G33k" > wrote

>> Hmmm...so helmets and drops are a no-no? Next you'll be saying
>> pneumatic tyres are the work of the devil! :D

>If you insist. Pneumatic tyres are the work of the devil...
>...the devil's work isn't all bad then.

Works of the devil are fine, he usually has all the best tunes after all.

It's the works of Stan you have to beware of...

--
- 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>

[Alistair Gunn]

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?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[David Martin]

On Sep 10, 9:12 pm, Alistair Gunn > 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?

"The hills are aliiiive, with the sound of muuussiiiiiiiic. La laa
lala la, la la la la laaaa"

[7@m3 G33k]

Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
> ... 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?

You see that's your mistake - the devil always gets such a bad name
because you insist on going *up* his hills rather than *down* them -
much more fun all round.

Of course then you'll also need a diabolic helmet which started this
load of bo**ox off in the first place - personally I recommend Giro.

Ian

[LSMike]

On Sep 11, 1:35 am, "7@m3 G33k" > wrote:
> Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
> > ... 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?
>
> You see that's your mistake - the devil always gets such a bad name
> because you insist on going *up* his hills rather than *down* them -
> much more fun all round.
>
> Of course then you'll also need a diabolic helmet which started this
> load of bo**ox off in the first place - personally I recommend Giro.
>
> Ian

Risk compensation, LOL! Why would you need or want a helmet? I can't
see a helmet doing much to save my life if I crash on a high speed
road descent.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 11, 8:31 am, LSMike > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:35 am, "7@m3 G33k" > wrote:
>
> > Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
> > > ... 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?
>
> > You see that's your mistake - the devil always gets such a bad name
> > because you insist on going *up* his hills rather than *down* them -
> > much more fun all round.
>
> > Of course then you'll also need a diabolic helmet which started this
> > load of bo**ox off in the first place - personally I recommend Giro.
>
> > Ian
>
> Risk compensation, LOL! Why would you need or want a helmet? I can't
> see a helmet doing much to save my life if I crash on a high speed
> road descent.


Ah, but if you're not wearing a helmet you might chicken out at 45mph
but with that "safe" feeling wearing a helmet you might actually make
it to the magic 50mph :-)

Tim.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

" > wrote in
ups.com:
>
>
> Ah, but if you're not wearing a helmet you might chicken out at 45mph
> but with that "safe" feeling wearing a helmet you might actually make
> it to the magic 50mph :-)
>

Quite the opposite. You would realise that you are above the speed where
the kinetic energy the helmet adds is greater than the energy it is
designed to absorb and so assiduously brake to stay under that speed ;-)

I did send a comment about that to Snell and got an interesting reply that
basically said the kinetic energy of the helmet doesn't feature in a crash
and people don't crash in the same way as helmets are tested so it will be
alright anyway. It has taken my view of Snell down many notches to the
point where I now think they are more justifying their own continuance than
acting as independent standard setters.


--
Tony

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

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

lid (Geraint Jones)
wrote in :

>
> One of the Good Lord Escher's more endearing creations is the
> escarpment. If I can pass on just one cycling tip of any use to
> anyone else when I go, it is that if you're cycling Oxford-Bath-Oxford
> it pays to go clockwise. There are absolutely no hills on the way out
> and they're all down on the way back.
>

There is another example in Bristol starting at Browns and going Queen's
Rd, Whiteladies Rd, Tyndall's Park Road, Woodland Rd, Park Row, Queen's Rd.

Its all flat until halfway along Woodland Rd where you get a long downhill
Park Row before starting off round again on the flat.

--
Tony

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

[7@m3 G33k]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> There is another example in Bristol starting at Browns and going Queen's
> Rd, Whiteladies Rd, Tyndall's Park Road, Woodland Rd, Park Row, Queen's Rd.
>
> Its all flat until halfway along Woodland Rd where you get a long downhill
> Park Row before starting off round again on the flat.
>

Wow! Never mind the kinetic energy of your helmet Tony - on that route
it will have infinite potential energy! Perhaps this his how advanced
alien civilisations have mastered nuclear fusion and the creation of
mini black holes for games of inter-galactic billiards...

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

Ian

[_[_2_]]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:11:25 GMT, 7@m3 G33k wrote:

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

No-one on the helmet-skeptic side says that helmets may not in some (albeit
very limited) circumstances offer some (albeit limited) protection. What
*is* said is that study after study shows that following large step-wise
increases in helmet-wearing no change in head injury rates occurs; and that
other changes which do occur are to the detriment of cyclists in particular
and public health in general. Your friend may or may not have benefitted in
that particular case from wearing a foam hat, but using an anecdote as
proof is

a) the talisman of the pro-helmet and pro-helmet-law brigade; and
b) rot.

[7@m3 G33k]

_ wrote:
> No-one on the helmet-skeptic side says that helmets may not in some (albeit
> very limited) circumstances offer some (albeit limited) protection. What
> *is* said is that study after study shows that following large step-wise
> increases in helmet-wearing no change in head injury rates occurs; and that
> other changes which do occur are to the detriment of cyclists in particular
> and public health in general. Your friend may or may not have benefitted in
> that particular case from wearing a foam hat, but using an anecdote as
> proof is
>
> a) the talisman of the pro-helmet and pro-helmet-law brigade; and
> b) rot.

I'm not in any brigade thanks and I'm not in favour of helmets being
made compulsory. I'll do a deal with you: you don't make assumptions
about me and I won't make assumptions about you (like that you're a
cycling rights fundamentalist who believes that the only victory is to
expel motor vehicles from the roads altogether - because I'm sure that's
not you).

And I wasn't seeking to prove anything. Actually the real world is a
little more complex and subtle than you seem to believe from the kinds
of research that you cite. The vast majority of injuries (especially for
those not cycling on roads) that helmets prevent would not enter the
statistics as they are not likely to be serious enough to require a
formal encounter with professional medical services. As you love my
anecdotes so much here's another: I don't recall a single off-road ride
on which I haven't had some small knocks on my helmet from miscellaneous
low-hanging objects. That proves nothing other than that I like to come
home from a ride without minor scrapes and bruises on my scalp.

There are any number of explanations why the kind of research you cite
may be flawed. Driver aggression increasing over time? Vehicle
construction (and especially macho add-ons like bull bars) being less
safe for collisions with pedestrians and cyclist over time? I'd be much
more interested to hear about some comparative research between injured
cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets. Or some research that
demonstrates that wearing a helmet makes a cyclist less safe and more
prone to injury. Until then I'm happy with my anecdotes that prove
nothing because I *know* that I and plenty of cyclists of my
acquaintance have avoided more and less serious injuries by wearing a
good helmet.

Oh and before you make any more assumptions I don't have any shares in
Giro - their helmets just happen to fit my funny shaped head better than
most :-p

Ian

[Martin Dann]

7@m3 G33k wrote:
I'd be much
> more interested to hear about some comparative research between injured
> cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets.

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.

Or some research that
> demonstrates that wearing a helmet makes a cyclist less safe and more
> prone to injury.

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

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


>
Until then I'm happy with my anecdotes that prove
> nothing because I *know* that I and plenty of cyclists of my
> acquaintance have avoided more and less serious injuries by wearing a
> good helmet.

Remember that with good (expensive) helmets, you are often
just paying more for bigger holes.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

"7@m3 G33k" > wrote in
. uk:

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

And which troll are you?

PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
fracture have failed, not worked.

--
Tony

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

[Squashme]

On 11 Sep, 23:29, Tony Raven > wrote:
> "7@m3 G33k" > wrote o.uk:
>
>
>
> > Damn...there I go talking rot again. However not as much rot as:
> > "cycling helmets offer no significant protection". 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.
>
> > Ian
>
> And which troll are you?
>
> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
> fracture have failed, not worked.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
> Bertrand Russell

I was standing using a cash machine this morning, when there was the
crash of glass behind me. Somebody was refurbishing a first-floor flat
above the bank, and was taking out the remains of a broken window-
pane. Unfortunately they let a quarter of the pane drop outwards into
the street. Just think how my helmet could have saved my life, if it
hadn't been hanging idly from my packpack (and if the glass had not
missed me).
Well, it makes you think doesn't it?

[DavidR[_2_]]

"7@m3 G33k" > wrote
>
> And I wasn't seeking to prove anything. Actually the real world is a
> little more complex and subtle than you seem to believe from the kinds of
> research that you cite. The vast majority of injuries (especially for
> those not cycling on roads) that helmets prevent would not enter the
> statistics as they are not likely to be serious enough to require a
> formal encounter with professional medical services. As you love my
> anecdotes so much here's another: I don't recall a single off-road ride
> on which I haven't had some small knocks on my helmet from miscellaneous
> low-hanging objects. That proves nothing other than that I like to come
> home from a ride without minor scrapes and bruises on my scalp.

As I started this thread saying I am a non-believer, I do wear a hat
off-road. If I hit an overhanging branch I do expect it to take some of the
sting away. Knowing this, a hat is therefore a performance enhancer. But
since it adds another inch to the top of the head, more hits are likely
because the brain is very good at knowing where the top of the head is. For
the same reason I also wear eye protection so that I don't have to dodge
holly bushes.

> There are any number of explanations why the kind of research you cite
> may be flawed. Driver aggression increasing over time? Vehicle
> construction (and especially macho add-ons like bull bars) being less
> safe for collisions with pedestrians and cyclist over time?

A helmet won't protect against head butting a motor vehicle. Even helmet
manufacturers say this.

> I'd be much more interested to hear about some comparative research
> between injured cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets.

The Dutch don't wear helmets. By all accounts they ought to be dropping
like flies.

> Or some research that demonstrates that wearing a helmet makes a cyclist
> less safe and more prone to injury. Until then I'm happy with my
> anecdotes that prove nothing because I *know* that I and plenty of
> cyclists of my acquaintance have avoided more and less serious injuries
> by wearing a good helmet.

But what about on roads? If you are talking about roads (or pavement) why
do they keep falling off?

[Rob Morley]

In article >, 7@m3 G33k
says...
> 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.
>
All that proves is that the helmet hit something and broke.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:03:16 -0700, Squashme > wrote:
>
> I was standing using a cash machine this morning, when there was the
> crash of glass behind me.

If you go round labelled 'squashme', what do you expect?

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

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

"DavidR" > wrote in
:
>
> As I started this thread saying I am a non-believer, I do wear a hat
> off-road. If I hit an overhanging branch I do expect it to take some
> of the sting away. Knowing this, a hat is therefore a performance
> enhancer. But since it adds another inch to the top of the head, more
> hits are likely because the brain is very good at knowing where the
> top of the head is. For the same reason I also wear eye protection so
> that I don't have to dodge holly bushes.

Back in the days when I used to wear a helmet, I would never wear it
indoors. The reason? I am tall and although I never hit my head normally
on door frames, I did it constantly when I was wearing my helmet. My brain
was adapted to clearing door frames without hitting them but when given
another inch or two on top it constantly misjudged unless I consciously
thought about it. I suspect the same is true off-road - we only hit the
tree branches because our brains are misjudging the clearance needed. As
an aside the most painful off road fall I had was when a branch caught in a
helmet vent and hoiked me off the bike backwards by the helmet.

>
>> I'd be much more interested to hear about some comparative research
>> between injured cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets.
>
> The Dutch don't wear helmets. By all accounts they ought to be
> dropping like flies.
>

Also the two papers by Hewson (links on cyclehelmets.org) look at
comparisons between helmet wearers and non-wearers in the UK police and
hospital accident stats and find no evidence for a benefit.


--
Tony

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

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Back in the days when I used to wear a helmet, I would never wear it
> indoors. The reason? I am tall and although I never hit my head normally
> on door frames, I did it constantly when I was wearing my helmet. My brain
> was adapted to clearing door frames without hitting them but when given
> another inch or two on top it constantly misjudged unless I consciously
> thought about it. I suspect the same is true off-road - we only hit the
> tree branches because our brains are misjudging the clearance needed.

Up to a point...
Orienteering on Sunday, no helmet, lots of head strikes on branches.
Why? The bit of forest I was negotiating didn't leave much choice
because there were branches at all levels with no clear path between
that avoided them. There really wasn't much choice except cover your
eyes and barge on through and take the flak. Roos joked later on (in a
not especially amused manner, it has to be said) that full body armour
might have been handy. She's got an interesting set of scratches and
bruises...

You will hit tree branches for reasons of basically not enough
clearance, period, as well as misjudging. The degree to which the
former happens will depend on the specific venue. As with caving, where
I always wear a lid despite knowing I'll hit my head more, I would
speculate there are venues where you're better off with some armour as
several inconsequential hits are probably better than a single one that
really hurts.

What do I do on an MTB? Technical trails around Glen Tress with /lots/
of branch potential at all vertical levels, happy to wear one. XC in
the 'Gorms for a Munro bag, no.

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

[7@m3 G33k]

Tony Raven wrote:

>
> And which troll are you?
>

The kind that says: "Oh **** off and grow up" to infantile remarks like
that. I expressed my opinion, related an actual incident and I've been
interested to read the replies, some of which contained ideas and
information that I had not considered. Excuse me for thinking that that
is one of the more positive aspects of usenet.

> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
> fracture have failed, not worked.
>

Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
your skull.

Ian

[Peter Clinch]

7@m3 G33k wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:

>> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
>> fracture have failed, not worked.

> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
> your skull.

He said "fracture", you said "deforming". Not the same thing. If it
fractures it doesn't necessarily deform first. Brittle fracture absorbs
practically no energy.

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

[Marc]

7@m3 G33k wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>
>> And which troll are you?
>>
>
> The kind that says: "Oh **** off and grow up" to infantile remarks like
> that. I expressed my opinion, related an actual incident and I've been
> interested to read the replies, some of which contained ideas and
> information that I had not considered. Excuse me for thinking that that
> is one of the more positive aspects of usenet.
>
>> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
>> fracture have failed, not worked.
>>
>
> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
> your skull.


If the helmet split then it wasn't deforming, if it wasn't deforming it
wasn't doing the job it was designed to do. It may well have deformed
then split, but that means that it had stopped doing what it was
designed to do and was now doing something else, or it could mean that
the helmet was already damaged and split without deforming, or it could
mean that the energy was directed into the helmet at such a high ramp up
rate that the material didn't have time to deform and so split.
whichever way a split helmet is not a sign that helmets work only that
one had operated in the way it was designed to.

[7@m3 G33k]

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.
>
> There is Dr Walkers research that drivers drive closer to cyclists
> wearing a MFH, than to those not wearing a MFH.
>
> There is research into risk compensation that shows wearing a helmet
> makes you take more risks.
>

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

>
> Remember that with good (expensive) helmets, you are often just paying
> more for bigger holes.
>

I'm happy to pay for those holes as it is always my intention to spend
less time falling off and more time actually cycling i.e. getting hot
and sweaty - I've suffered under a poorly ventilated lid and for me the
extra is worth it. That said well-ventilated lids are cheaper even in
absolute terms now than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Ian

[Adrian Godwin]

7@m3 G33k > wrote:

> formal encounter with professional medical services. As you love my
> anecdotes so much here's another: I don't recall a single off-road ride
> on which I haven't had some small knocks on my helmet from miscellaneous
> low-hanging objects. That proves nothing other than that I like to come
> home from a ride without minor scrapes and bruises on my scalp.
>

I think you'll find others here who like them for that sort of usage,
though it doesn't seem relevant to road riding.

However, the disposable polystyrene helmets would seem particularly
unsuited to this application : you're trying to protect yourself from
repeated small knocks and abrasions, possibly on lower head and neck
as well as above the hairline. A canoe helmet with its resilient
surface, wider coverage, smaller diameter and recoverable foam is
probably well suited (and maybe this is the basis for some of the
MTB/BMX helmets - I haven't studied them).

-adrian

[Marc]

marc wrote:
> 7@m3 G33k wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And which troll are you?
>>>
>>
>> The kind that says: "Oh **** off and grow up" to infantile remarks
>> like that. I expressed my opinion, related an actual incident and I've
>> been interested to read the replies, some of which contained ideas and
>> information that I had not considered. Excuse me for thinking that
>> that is one of the more positive aspects of usenet.
>>
>>> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
>>> fracture have failed, not worked.
>>>
>>
>> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
>> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather
>> than your skull.
>
>
> If the helmet split then it wasn't deforming, if it wasn't deforming it
> wasn't doing the job it was designed to do. It may well have deformed
> then split, but that means that it had stopped doing what it was
> designed to do and was now doing something else, or it could mean that
> the helmet was already damaged and split without deforming, or it could
> mean that the energy was directed into the helmet at such a high ramp up
> rate that the material didn't have time to deform and so split.
> whichever way a split helmet is not a sign that helmets work only that
> one had operated in the way it was designed to.


whichever way a split helmet is not a sign that helmets work only that
> one had operated in the way it was not designed to.


amazing the difference a "not" makes!

[Marc]

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.
>>
>> There is Dr Walkers research that drivers drive closer to cyclists
>> wearing a MFH, than to those not wearing a MFH.
>>
>> There is research into risk compensation that shows wearing a helmet
>> makes you take more risks.
>>
>
> Interesting stuff - any pointers as to where these may be found on-line?
>
>>
>> Remember that with good (expensive) helmets, you are often just paying
>> more for bigger holes.
>>
>
> I'm happy to pay for those holes as it is always my intention to spend
> less time falling off and more time actually cycling i.e. getting hot
> and sweaty - I've suffered under a poorly ventilated lid and for me the
> extra is worth it. That said well-ventilated lids are cheaper even in
> absolute terms now than they were 5 or 10 years ago.


and nowhere near the standard they were 16 years ago!

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:46:58 GMT, 7@m3 G33k <> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> > PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
> > fracture have failed, not worked.
>
> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
> your skull.

Oh dear.

You do understand the difference between "fracture" (no significant
deformation, very little energy) and "deforming" (lots of energy
absorbed), don't you?

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

[Peter Clinch]

Adrian Godwin wrote:
> 7@m3 G33k > wrote:
>
>> formal encounter with professional medical services. As you love my
>> anecdotes so much here's another: I don't recall a single off-road ride
>> on which I haven't had some small knocks on my helmet from miscellaneous
>> low-hanging objects. That proves nothing other than that I like to come
>> home from a ride without minor scrapes and bruises on my scalp.

> I think you'll find others here who like them for that sort of usage,
> though it doesn't seem relevant to road riding.

Or indeed a lot of off-road riding. Cycling 10 miles across landy
tracks in the 'Gorms for a remote Munro bag, where exactly will I find
these "low hanging objects"?

> However, the disposable polystyrene helmets would seem particularly
> unsuited to this application : you're trying to protect yourself from
> repeated small knocks and abrasions, possibly on lower head and neck
> as well as above the hairline. A canoe helmet with its resilient
> surface, wider coverage, smaller diameter and recoverable foam is
> probably well suited (and maybe this is the basis for some of the
> MTB/BMX helmets - I haven't studied them).

I'd agree. Caving helmets, likewise, which are designed on the exact
principle that they *will* get lots of small knocks. Never seen a
polystyrene foam one, they're all hard shell with a load-spreading cradle.

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

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:46:58 GMT, 7@m3 G33k <> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
>>> fracture have failed, not worked.
>> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
>> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
>> your skull.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> You do understand the difference between "fracture" (no significant
> deformation, very little energy) and "deforming" (lots of energy
> absorbed), don't you?

There are, of course, two distinct types of fracture: brittle and ductile.

Could it be with a helmet, that the effect of the deformation caused by
the impact (absorbing the shock), combined with, say, the restraining
effect of any shell, or of the fixing straps, or of the foam geometry
itself, could induce enough bending (it only has to be a small amount)
to trigger a brittle fracture in the foam - i.e. it does its job, /then/
breaks.

--
Matt B

[The Luggage]

On 12 Sep, 09:04, Peter Clinch > wrote:
>
> What do I do on an MTB? Technical trails around Glen Tress with /lots/
> of branch potential at all vertical levels, happy to wear one. XC in
> the 'Gorms for a Munro bag, no.

Is riding up them not counted as cheating??

TL

[_[_2_]]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:56:47 GMT, 7@m3 G33k wrote:

>
> I'm happy to pay for those holes as it is always my intention to spend
> less time falling off and more time actually cycling i.e. getting hot
> and sweaty - I've suffered under a poorly ventilated lid and for me the
> extra is worth it. That said well-ventilated lids are cheaper even in
> absolute terms now than they were 5 or 10 years ago.
>

The helmet with the biggest holes is free.

[_[_2_]]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:46:58 GMT, 7@m3 G33k wrote:

>
> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
> your skull.
>

No.

A fracture is indeed a kind of deformation, but one which, for the material
used in foam hats, takes a *very* small amount of energy. The greatest
energy absorbed by this material comes when it is compressed without
fracture - which usually requires a impact with a blunt object normal to
the pivot centre.

Fractures are usually a sign that the foam hat experienced an impact that
was offset from the pivot centre; such impacts are the ones most likely to
cause rotational injuries, which require roughly an order of magnitude less
energy than direct impacts. This much smaller energy requirement, combined
with the probability that such impacts are more likely, the additional size
and the additional friction of the foam hat may well be the reason that
head injury rates do not decline (some studies show an increase) following
sudden large increases in foam hat wearing.

[Peter Clinch]

The Luggage wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 09:04, Peter Clinch > wrote:
>> What do I do on an MTB? Technical trails around Glen Tress with /lots/
>> of branch potential at all vertical levels, happy to wear one. XC in
>> the 'Gorms for a Munro bag, no.
>
> Is riding up them not counted as cheating??

I wouldn't know, I just use the bike for the approach... Can save a
couple of hours and a lot of grind compared to walking.

There are probably a few you can top out by bike as easily on foot, but
mainly c.f. the bikes/walking efficiency thread and the limiting
problems caused by boulder fields on steep slopes.

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

[David Martin]

On Sep 12, 11:21 am, Matt B > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:46:58 GMT, 7@m3 G33k <> wrote:
> >> Tony Raven wrote:
> >>> PS The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data and helmets that
> >>> fracture have failed, not worked.
> >> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
> >> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
> >> your skull.
>
> > Oh dear.
>
> > You do understand the difference between "fracture" (no significant
> > deformation, very little energy) and "deforming" (lots of energy
> > absorbed), don't you?
>
> There are, of course, two distinct types of fracture: brittle and ductile.
>
> Could it be with a helmet, that the effect of the deformation caused by
> the impact (absorbing the shock), combined with, say, the restraining
> effect of any shell, or of the fixing straps, or of the foam geometry
> itself, could induce enough bending (it only has to be a small amount)
> to trigger a brittle fracture in the foam - i.e. it does its job, /then/
> breaks.

No. In that particular case an impact has occurred which wouldn't have
occurred otherwise. The effective head size with a helmet is much
larger, so you are more likely to hit things that without a helmet
would have missed completely.

...d

[Matt B]

_ wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:46:58 GMT, 7@m3 G33k wrote:
>
>> Erm...wrong - this is precisely how expanded polystyrene helmets work.
>> The energy of the impact is absorbed in deforming the helmet rather than
>> your skull.
>
> No.

Well yes - if the impact is absorbed /before/ the helmet breaks.

> A fracture is indeed a kind of deformation, but one which, for the material
> used in foam hats, takes a *very* small amount of energy.

Which could occur /after/ the main impact has been absorbed.

> The greatest
> energy absorbed by this material comes when it is compressed without
> fracture - which usually requires a impact with a blunt object normal to
> the pivot centre.

Yes, but that doesn't then prevent it from fracturing due to resultant,
smaller, bending forces.

> Fractures are usually a sign that the foam hat experienced an impact that
> was offset from the pivot centre;

A bending force, in fact. Such as on a part which is unsupported by
your head (so bends freely rather than being compressed against the head).

Consider the likely differences in outcome between hitting, with a
brick, a hollow polystyrene shell with nothing inside it, and hitting a
similar shell filled with concrete.

--
Matt B

[David Damerell]

Quoting 7@m3 G33k >:
>Damn...there I go talking rot again. However not as much rot as:
>"cycling helmets offer no significant protection". 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.

When did you repeat the experiment with a control unhelmeted head?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

[David Damerell]

Quoting 7@m3 G33k >:
>of research that you cite. The vast majority of injuries (especially for
>those not cycling on roads) that helmets prevent would not enter the
>statistics as they are not likely to be serious enough to require a
>formal encounter with professional medical services.

Wait, if we're talking about cuts and bruises, do you also wear BMX elbow
and knee pads?

>prone to injury. Until then I'm happy with my anecdotes that prove
>nothing because I *know* that I and plenty of cyclists of my
>acquaintance have avoided more and less serious injuries by wearing a
>good helmet.

Where "know" means "guess".
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

[David Martin]

On Sep 12, 2:35 pm, David Damerell >
wrote:
> Quoting 7@m3 G33k >:
>
> >of research that you cite. The vast majority of injuries (especially for
> >those not cycling on roads) that helmets prevent would not enter the
> >statistics as they are not likely to be serious enough to require a
> >formal encounter with professional medical services.
>
> Wait, if we're talking about cuts and bruises, do you also wear BMX elbow
> and knee pads?

On his head? Or does he wear long sleeved tops/full length leggings to
prevent scratches etc. and just lives with the soft tissue injury as
regards minor bruises.

...d

[Peter Clinch]

David Martin wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2:35 pm, David Damerell >
> wrote:
>> Quoting 7@m3 G33k >:
>>
>>> of research that you cite. The vast majority of injuries (especially for
>>> those not cycling on roads) that helmets prevent would not enter the
>>> statistics as they are not likely to be serious enough to require a
>>> formal encounter with professional medical services.
>> Wait, if we're talking about cuts and bruises, do you also wear BMX elbow
>> and knee pads?
>
> On his head? Or does he wear long sleeved tops/full length leggings to
> prevent scratches etc. and just lives with the soft tissue injury as
> regards minor bruises.

Well that's not really fair, asking questions where the answers don't
fit with rationalising existing behaviour... ;-/

(I know about rationalising existing behaviour with respect to helmets:
I found out I was doing exactly that, shortly before I stopped wearing
one following a decade or so of one on every trip when I was quite
convinced it was the common sense thing to do, backed up with lots of
reasons and projections and anecdotes).

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

[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 >
>> 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 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.

[7@m3 G33k]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> 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.

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

(i) I'm happy to say now that I need to read a little more around this
subject, in my defence I freely admit to not being able to see the
future so I didn't know in advance that there were any reasonable
arguments against bike helmet wearing;

(ii) if someone unreasonably has a go at me I may let it go but equally
I will have no qualms about having a dig back - and I will always object
to being accused of trolling;

(iii) I realise that any ng is subject to trolling, etc. and regular
genuine posters/readers will justifiably be irate about this but I think
you are guilty of a tiny bit of hyperbole with your Iraq analogy! I've
been a regular cyclist for two decades and experienced two wheeled
sweat-powered transport as a racer, tourist, commuter, leisure cyclist,
muddy off-roader and more. I think we're on the same side.

Ian

[Roger Merriman]

Alistair Gunn > 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[_2_]]

"7@m3 G33k" > wrote in news:6INFi.12903$c_1.192
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>
>> And which troll are you?
>>
>
> The kind that says: "Oh **** off and grow up" to infantile remarks like
> that. I expressed my opinion, related an actual incident and I've been
> interested to read the replies, some of which contained ideas and
> information that I had not considered. Excuse me for thinking that that
> is one of the more positive aspects of usenet.
>

Your turning up here with a few days posting history and starting posting
the usual "helmet saved my life" anecdotal crap puts you into the "high
probability of being a troll" category based on past experiences here.

--
Tony

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

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

"7@m3 G33k" > 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[David Damerell]

Quoting 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.

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 > flcl?
Today is Potmos, September.

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "7@m3 G33k"
> 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 > 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/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...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.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 > wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 20:40, Martin Dann > 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[_2_]]

Mark W > wrote in
oups.com:
>
> 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[_2_]]

Mark W > wrote in
oups.com:
>
> 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 ****oir's
"Vortex - A Threnody"?', and it may well be so.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Ian Smith >typed


> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Mark W > wrote:
> > On 12 Sep, 20:40, Martin Dann > 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:
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" > wrote in message
...
> Mark W > wrote in
> oups.com:
>>
>> 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 > 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|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, burtthebike > 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

Isn't that one the the pieces of data that they have to fill in - for
hospital statistics? So that researchers can analyse it and speculate
as to how how many cyclists wear them, and how useful they are?

> and offered the
> opinion "naught naughty" when I said I was not.

Hardly surprising given the that the BMA, government, local authorities,
road safety groups, general safety groups, councils, schools, scouting
groups, etc., etc, tend to strongly recommend bicycle helmet use, or
even prohibit bicycle use without them.

> She declined to discuss the topic further.

She has more important things to worry about. She has learnt to accept
the "expert" opinion, especially of the BMA, for many, many, of the
problems she has to deal with in her daily routine.

--
Matt B