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

Hadron Quark wrote:

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.

What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel then
there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.

As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run has
ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?

Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
it. They were invented for a reason you know.

Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to B
utility road cycling.

When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
someone just walked out in front of me.

I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them saying
they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that matter).

Are you just being obstinate?

No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb is
the safest place to be is even more widespread than the misapprehension
that helmets will Save Your Life.

The clip of the wing mirror
was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
runner would.

No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to positioning.

In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
with it.

"Should" != "Does"

A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
etc etc etc I wont go on

And will typically skid a little and then continue. A runner's probably
more likely to lose their footing, ISTM.

one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
you the right of way with a cheery wave.

It does that for me, which suggests you're doing something wrong.

I'm yet to see anything,
however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
to safety.

The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

So now you have.

Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
anything other than beneficial.

So how come in every legislature that has increased helmet wearing
significantly through mandating their use, there is no apparent
improvement in serious head injuries? Never mind the "how", that is
what *has* happened.

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/

Hadron Quark wrote:

1) faster

Runners can easily attain the speeds that are maximum for the bike
helmet specification, some runners run faster than some cyclists.

2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions

But is Cathy's run on slippery/hazardous roads? There are many
instances, especially in winter with road gritting, where the sidewalks
are far more slippery than the roadway, so should runners be wearing
helmets in winter if they run on the sidewalks?

3) higher

Not much, but depends on the bike. Even onb my bolt-upright Brompton
I'm not as tall as a tall friend of mine: should basketball players
routinely wear helmets?

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

I'm prone to all of these but am not in the habit of (a) falling off or
(b) banging my head. "More risk" is not the same as "must be acted
against". Take two identical women, one in spike stilletos and one in
Sensible Shoes. The former is taller and less stable, so according to
the "logic" she should be wearing a helmet...

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 wrote:

snipped for clarity and brevity

The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"


Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.

And?

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 wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.

And?



Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam
"microshell" helmets were not yet on the market. There were styrofoam
shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent
entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very
tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And
the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but
those weren't even helmets.

The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?

Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
running:


1) faster

Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?

2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions

Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should
cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should
runners don them in winter?

3) higher

?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny
farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's
standing.

4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards

Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to
deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and
relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when
the runner generally does not.

5) more prone to slip stream

This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
stability problem due to "slipstream."

6) more prone to cross winds

Ditto.

If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for
data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really,
really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data.

One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
(Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
well-developed, westernized urban area.)

Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.

Read the paper and see the numbers.

Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.

Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_
certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find
some?

- Frank Krygowski

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Am I to understand that the study you are citing is from 1988?

Looks to me like that's when it was published, yes.

And?



Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988. The styrofoam
"microshell" helmets were not yet on the market. There were styrofoam
shells covered with cloth made by Bell, Giro (then an independent
entity) and Pro-Tec.(Betcha those stuck to the pavement very
tenaciously.) There were the "hardshell" Bell Biker and V-1 Pro. And
the notoriously useless Skid-lid. Oh and the "hairnet" thingies, but
those weren't even helmets.

The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?


Of course, there were passionate defenders of all those helmets back
then, too.

Here are several pertinent points:

1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use
than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more
protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to
pavement than today's microshell hats.

2) In those days, rabid helmet promotion had not taken hold. Thus,
the people in helmets were closer to the "early adopters." There's a
good probability that the early adopters of safety equipment are the
most safety conscious people.

3) 1988 is precisely when Thompson, Rivara et. al. were doing their
"85%!!!!" study. If you really think those helmets were so different
from todays (despite very similar certification tests) you should be
among those arguing against every claim of "85%!!!!"

Certainly, every study since 1988 (or it's publishing date, 1989) has
found far less benefit for helmet use - even the larger one done by the
same biased team. And the largest and least biased and most up-to-date
studies are the ones that have actually found negative benefit
(disbenefit, if you will) from helmet use.

So if you prefer to reject the '80s information and go with 2006, let's
all agree to do so. Let's go with
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

- Frank Krygowski

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988.

Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078.
Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got
lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made
to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened.

The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?

Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not,
so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform
to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear
because they wouldn't do any harm.

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/

writes:

Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
running:


1) faster

Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?

Oh for gods sake.


2) less stable in slippery/hazardous road conditions

Perhaps, depending on conditions. But again, there is overlap. Should
cyclists dispense with helmets on smooth dry pavement, and should
runners don them in winter?

Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
is whether a helmet can be beneficial. Certainly I would consider
wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
netherlands cycle track.


3) higher

?? Not unless the cyclist is on an antique "ordinary" or "penny
farthing". A cyclist's head is often a bit lower than when he's
standing.

True : I guess I meant "less stable above the ground in low speed conditions".


4) due to speed less likely to be able to avoid sudden hazards

Yet, unless riding off-road, the cyclist is much less likely to have to
deal with sudden hazards than the runner. Roads are smooth and
relatively wide by design, and as a road user, the cyclist has ROW when
the runner generally does not.

5) more prone to slip stream

This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
stability problem due to "slipstream."

The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.


6) more prone to cross winds

Ditto.

Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are
clearly very lucky.


If you really want to find out who's more at risk, you should look for
data - despite the fact that the crew shouting "Cycling is really,
really dangerous!!!!!" mock the idea of data.

Who said that? Not me.


One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
(Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
well-developed, westernized urban area.)

Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.

Read the paper and see the numbers.

Enough of this. Its bordering on the silly IMO.

Well, it's definitely more sensible to look for data. _That's_
certainly something on which we can agree! Care to see if you can find
some?

I note you still dont answer the question and keep formulating a totally
incorrect one.

Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.


- Frank Krygowski


--

Tim McNamara writes:

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.

So what? BTW, do these statistics correctly scale to relevant numbers
involved in the "sport" or pastime? e.g everyone is at sometime a
pedestrian : only a percentage are cyclists.

Regardless,

1) I choose not to wear a helmet
2) I see no facts disproving that a helemt would, in a head collision,
offer more protection than nothing at all.




--