Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

wrote in message
oups.com...

GaryG wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

GaryG wrote:

The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal
hearsay...at
best.

I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.

Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease
the
signal to noise ratio.

They relay information that I read which is possibly pertinent.

They relayed nothing except your biases, and your need to pontificate.

In
some cases, remarks like this have brought either confirming
documentation, or complete rebuttal, from people who happen to be
experts. If that happens either way, we learn.

By your own reasoning then, posting something like "my friend said a helmet
saved him from a concussion when he hit his head on the curb" would be as
acceptable as your posting "I recall reading about a guy who might have
said...blah-blah-blah" without citations or context.


If the ideas are never mentioned, we have no opportunity to learn.

We've learned nothing from your "I read an article" post, other than how it
illustrates your biases.


In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about
this
issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time
to
blather on Usenet".

That was directed toward people who were arguing vociferously for well
over a week, from a position of almost total ignorance of pertinent
facts.

You need to understand the difference between energetic defense of
ignorance, and deliberately tentative presentation of what may be a
pertinent fact.

Yes...I think I can discern the difference, and which side your arguments
fall on.

GG


- Frank Krygowski

"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
(there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.

Hadron Quark wrote:
"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
(there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running?

For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,
since we have a more reasonable comprehension of the risks of running
and know it would be absurd and that's all right, just as not wearing
one for cycling was all right up until cycle helmets were invented and
then pushed as a solution in search of a problem.

You arms dont get tangled in handlebars/cables

Speaking as a cyclist of some experience I can never recall my arms
getting tangles in cables or bars while cycling. My mum's been cycling
almost daily for most of her 73 years and has never found that to be a
problem either. I'd be surprised if Cathy does. Maybe you do?

you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror

About as likely if it's the same route on the same roads. And since
mirrors aren't typically at head height, how is that relevant?

The way to avoid being clipped by mirrors is proper positioning that
encourages proper formal overtaking manoeuvres rather than squeezing by,
nothing to do with helmets (there is anecdotal evidence that wearing
helmets /encourages/ poor overtaking, because the cyclist is perceived
as "safe").

Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.

Very similar accident results, and I don't see shy the risk factors
should be that different. Getting hit by a vehicle running won't be
much different to being hit while cycling, and in either case the
energies involved are way beyond the specification cycle helmets are
built to, which is for a low speed fall to the ground and nothing worse.
I don't notice cyclists tripping (or a cycle equivalent) and falling
(a primary cause of ER head injuries) more than runners.

Helmets are basically just as applicable to pedestrians as cyclists: in
typical roadgoing use, not much at all.

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/

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
wrote:

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.

Totally? People get hit by cars running.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
wrote:

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.

Totally? People get hit by cars running.

Err, I know.

But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
straw man.

Hadron Quark wrote:

But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
straw man.

"Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
expected to usefully work against?

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/

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

But to equate the two is simply ridiculous and attempting to build a
straw man.

"Fully equate" would be silly, but there are certainly degrees of
similarity. What risks does a cyclist face that a runner on the same
road doesn't, and how are accidents caused by such differences in risk
particularly productive of head injuries, and specifically the sort of
head injuries that something built to the EN1078 specification can be
expected to usefully work against?

1) faster
2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions
3) higher
4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards
5) more prone to slip stream
6) more prone to cross winds

Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:50:17 +0200, Hadron Quark
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:17:48 +0200, Hadron Quark
wrote:

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled in
handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with it
so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk factors
with totally different accident results.

Totally? People get hit by cars running.

Err, I know.

But to equate the two is simply ridiculous

No.

and attempting to build a
straw man.

No -- it's attempting to get people to think about risk more
comprehensively..

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:04:58 +0200, Hadron Quark
wrote:

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:
"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while pedaling
to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route, on the same roads
(there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more often, yet not one person
has mentioned I should be wearing a helmet when I go running.
Why would you wear a helmet when running?

For the same reason you'd use one when cycling, since it's a similar
level of risk with similar outcomes in case of accidents. Of course,

eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
drainage grates and gravel etc.

I won't comment on runners specifically, but in my country tens of
thousands of pedestrians of all sorts are hit by cars and many
thousands are killed each year. And many people are afraid to walk
along suburban and rural roads because of the danger of cars hitting
them. Some cyclists feel the same way too. So, in terms of general
safety regarding cars, there are a lot of related issues regarding
people on foot and on bikes. To claim they are completely unrelated
is bizarre.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
Hadron Quark wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while
pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route,
on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more
often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a
helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled
in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with
it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk
factors with totally different accident results.

According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.