No Helmets Needed?

Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the
ground as it is....

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and
lighter than styrofoam?

NYC XYZ wrote:
Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent?

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Seems like a harder thing to do, no?

Sliding out it's just as easy.

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org
People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.
Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

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:


Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an
oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet
topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say
that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious
Chinese Food!"

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Sliding out it's just as easy.

Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than
compared to an upright? To fall out/off.

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are
"boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever
-- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of
something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow.

I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light
(or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely
stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org

Cool, thanks!

People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.

I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone
drivers" instead!

Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

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:


Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of
riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on
conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of
headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and
usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding.

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an
oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet
topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say
that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious
Chinese Food!"

A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy
unclipping disasters.

Sliding out it's just as easy.

Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than
compared to an upright? To fall out/off.

Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and
are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity.

No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are
"boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever
-- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of
something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow.

I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light
(or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely
stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where
helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to
that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at
www.cyclehelmets.org

Cool, thanks!

People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century
on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death
often painted.

I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone
drivers" instead!

Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more
since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one.

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!"

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/

NYC XYZ wrote:

Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club
forces you to wear helmets!

In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:



In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure.

Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

Hmm...but Europeans are supposed better edjamacated than US-ians, and
they're zipping around carefree.

NYC XYZ wrote:
SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:



In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long
time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time
was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue
of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the
same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets
would raise the premium significantly.

Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure.

It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure.

I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB
sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_
require helmets, and we were not told to do so.

That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the
LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their
organized rides:

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements.

I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of
the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true
believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids"
promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on
those blurbs.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:

----------clip----
Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true

I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the
key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give
new meaning to the term "junk science".

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

wrote:

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true

It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,
and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These
studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.

wrote:
...
I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the
key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give
new meaning to the term "junk science".

Without a h*lm*t, how do you keep the anti-mind-control foil on your
head?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley