Helmets don't always work ..

On Aug 23, 1:24*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Neil" considered Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:45:08
+0100 the perfect time to write:

"The Medicated Handyman" *wrote in message
...

On 21/08/2011 23:46, Neil wrote:
I do not wear a helmet because I survived many decades before they came
into fashion. However the arguments against them seemed to be
statistical and do not answer the certain circumstances - rare though
they are - that if you are going to land on your head at 10 mph or less,
it helps of you are wearing one..

you also have to consider the fact that in certain circumstances - rare
though they are - wearing a helmet can make things worse

How?

Increased head size can turn a near miss into an impact, as well as
giving a greater torque arm.

Until they invent dimensionless helmets with an ability to slip on
whatever is hit as good as that evolved over millennia, that problem
will remain.

I still have my hair.

On Aug 23, 1:24*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

Increased head size can turn a near miss into an impact, as well as
giving a greater torque arm.

Until they invent dimensionless helmets with an ability to slip on
whatever is hit as good as that evolved over millennia, that problem
will remain.

I might even buy one if such a helmet gets invented.
Until then my skull is more than adequate protection as nature has
intended.

--
Simon Mason

On 22/08/2011 09:39, thirty-six wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:15 am, "Simon
wrote:
wrote in message

news:f7bbd034-bb41-440d-bfd4-

bike helmets can also make things worse due to increased risk taking by
the rider and by causing injuries which wouldn't otherwise occur at all
Yes, I scratched my face while trying on a helmet, I could have got a
nasty infection, contracting lockjaw, and died.

Lockjaw? That's tetanus isn't it?

Yes, it's the cyclist's enemy as tetanus is transferred by bird crap
onto the roads. When you fall off and get a graze of any size and
depth, there is a real risk of the body being infected by this
killer. Arguments abound though whether or not you need boosters. As
far as I know, it's every ten years but some healthcare workers will
deny this claiming that two or three innoculations are sufficient for
life. If you are taking risks (such as racing) or are planning a high
milage, get the jab first, it could seriously save your life.

But surely having the jab will make things worse due to increased risk
taking by the rider ..........




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:07:58 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

snip


Depends how deep the wound is.
Superficial cuts are not a problem


Rubbish - it is a good job that few people listen to the crap that you spout.

The wound does not have to be deep to catch tetanus

True - but only as a trivial boolean; depth of cut *is* a factor.

BugBear

Phil W Lee wrote:
The Medicated Handyman considered Mon, 22 Aug
2011 01:55:05 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On 22/08/2011 01:20, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2011 23:37, The Medicated Handyman wrote:

On 21/08/2011 18:21, JNugent wrote:

Of course you don't *need* (in the strict sense) a safety helmet
to use a bike, any more than you need to use a safety harness
when cleaning the windows of the upper floors of a syscraper or
any more than you need a pair of safety goggles when doing
close-up metalwork. And in truth, you don't strictly need a crash
helmet on a motor-bike. All any of those things (including a
cycle safety helmet) do is provide protection when things go
wrong.

that's not all they do
bike helmets can also make things worse due to increased risk
taking by the
rider and by causing injuries which wouldn't otherwise occur at all

And not only that, but the safety harness for a high-rise
window-cleaner could conceivably either encourage him to take
unnecessary risks whilse he's high up or it might even strangle him
(I suppose I ought to add "or her").

And not only that, but a welder might injure an eye with his goggles
whilst putting them on and a motorcyclist might trip over his
helmet and break an ankle or something.

Perhaps you're right and all safety equipment ought to be banned.


no, you just need to be confident that the potential benefits of
safety equipment outweigh the potential risks

in the case of bicycle helmets, it is far from clear that this is
the case

Indeed, if you look only at proven cases, they are known to cost more
lives than they save.

can you show your working on this?

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:54:02 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:07:58 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

snip


Depends how deep the wound is.
Superficial cuts are not a problem


Rubbish - it is a good job that few people listen to the crap that you spout.

The wound does not have to be deep to catch tetanus

True - but only as a trivial boolean; depth of cut *is* a factor.

BugBear


Thank you for confirming that Mason was talking ****e as usual.

On Aug 23, 8:14*am, thirty-six wrote:

Until they invent dimensionless helmets with an ability to slip on
whatever is hit as good as that evolved over millennia, that problem
will remain.

I still have my hair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, good isn't it?

--
Simon Mason

Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:54:02 +0100,
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:07:58 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

snip


Depends how deep the wound is.
Superficial cuts are not a problem


Rubbish - it is a good job that few people listen to the crap that you spout.

The wound does not have to be deep to catch tetanus

True - but only as a trivial boolean; depth of cut *is* a factor.

BugBear


Thank you for confirming that Mason was talking ****e as usual.

I didn't. You are wrong. Still, at least you're sticking to the subject,
which is something. Well done. 3/10.

BugBear

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:47:26 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:54:02 +0100,
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:07:58 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

snip


Depends how deep the wound is.
Superficial cuts are not a problem


Rubbish - it is a good job that few people listen to the crap that you spout.

The wound does not have to be deep to catch tetanus

True - but only as a trivial boolean; depth of cut *is* a factor.

BugBear


Thank you for confirming that Mason was talking ****e as usual.

I didn't. You are wrong. Still, at least you're sticking to the subject,
which is something. Well done. 3/10.

BugBear


Sorry - your reading skills are still really not up to it.

If I say "Rubbish" - and you reply : "True" - then there is a very reasonable
chance that you were thinking that what he said was rubbish.

Have you thought of English at an evening class? Or per hasp Papermule would
let you do one during the day if things are as slack there as they appear to
be.

Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:47:26 +0100,
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:54:02 +0100,
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:07:58 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

snip


Depends how deep the wound is.
Superficial cuts are not a problem


Rubbish - it is a good job that few people listen to the crap that you spout.

The wound does not have to be deep to catch tetanus

True - but only as a trivial boolean; depth of cut *is* a factor.

BugBear


Thank you for confirming that Mason was talking ****e as usual.

I didn't. You are wrong. Still, at least you're sticking to the subject,
which is something. Well done. 3/10.

BugBear


Sorry - your reading skills are still really not up to it.

If I say "Rubbish" - and you reply : "True" - then there is a very reasonable
chance that you were thinking that what he said was rubbish.

Have you thought of English at an evening class? Or per hasp Papermule would
let you do one during the day if things are as slack there as they appear to
be.

2/10.


but:

1. Used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned


HTH.

BugBear