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

Alan Braggins wrote:

So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?

You DID cross-post this, you know. (Nice little trick with the null
followup notwithstanding.)

Hadron Quark wrote:
(Alan Braggins) writes:

In article , Sorni wrote:

we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively
supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a
MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the
poster didn't actively support a MHL.

See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and
unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
value are also active supporters of an MHL.

How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience
one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one
wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice.

Bingo.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:12:15 +0100, Tony Green
wrote:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

I haven't seen that in rbt.

JT

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

In article , Sorni wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:

So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?

You DID cross-post this, you know.

Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in.

But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies
to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some
****-stirrers have.

In article , Hadron Quark wrote:
(Alan Braggins) writes:

In article , Sorni wrote:

we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL.

See : you just did it.

What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand?


You have insinuated through clever snipping and
unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
value are also active supporters of an MHL.

Not all of them.

(Alan Braggins) writes:

In article , Hadron Quark wrote:
(Alan Braggins) writes:

In article , Sorni wrote:

we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL.

See : you just did it.

What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand?


See below. Once again you twist like a skewered eel.


You have insinuated through clever snipping and
unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
value are also active supporters of an MHL.

Not all of them.

Again :

"But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" appear in
posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL."


What part of someone saying they appreciate helmet protection but dont
support MHLs dont you understand?

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Sorni wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:

So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?

You DID cross-post this, you know.

Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in.

But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies
to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some
****-stirrers have.

Fine. Go after the original cross-poster then. (Although if it's on topic
for all groups, then what's the problem?)

You made it sound like *I* initiated the cross-posting, which I did not. I
hit "Reply Group".

Post nanny.

B

In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:

Cathy Kearns wrote:
Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer,
figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I
don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are
so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that.


You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning
heading in soccer
http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html

Heading is too difficult to do properly in a fast game, as
one usually cannot bring the correct area of the skull to
bear; and too easy to hurt oneself.

There is one portion of the skull that can be used as a
mallet: the dome near and above the hairline on the
forehead. That point can be found by tapping a pencil
around that area.

Saw an ice hockey game where a Russian player new to the
NHL got into a fight with an opposing player. They each
had a two handed grip on the other, then the Russian
butted the opponent's face. Opponent went down like a sack
of potatoes. Apparently nutting is illegal in the NHL.

A heavy blow can be delivered without hurting oneself.

--
Michael Press

GaryG wrote in message


Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk
of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, martial arts, American
football and baseball, etc.).

But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar degrees
of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by far the
greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in America - DESPITE
seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly half such deaths;
cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this great burden on
America's health care system somehow doesn't warrant the obvious
remedy.

(BTW, it's not a "per hour" thing either. The risk of fatal head
injury per hour is roughly similar on a bike or in a car, and both are
infinitesmal.)

In truth, people's judgement on this matter is shaped much more by
fashion and well-cultivated beliefs than by actual facts. Before Bell
began aggressively marketing the Bell Biker (in the 1970s, to
capitalize on the recent surge in adult cycling) nobody associated
cycling with head injury. Look at books, magazines, or other cycling
information before 1975 to see.

First came the product, the opportunity for Bell to branch out and make
more money. Then came the massive promotion campaigns, including the
funds provided to earnest lobbyists like Safe Kids Inc. Then came the
"common sense" judgements. Now - only now - are we getting data that
shows how false the promotions are.

For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is
pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their
ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational
folks.

I'm curious where you get those ideas! "Most people" do NOT choose
helmets to bicycle, unless (and until) they are subject to marketing,
rules, laws, peer pressure or other influences. Normal people simply
do not see cycling as being a special head injury danger - and they are
correct.

This is very obviously true if you take a trip either to Europe or to
Asia - places where bike use is much higher, per person, than the USA,
and where marketing efforts are several years behind the American
hyper-safety, consumer-product frenzy. It's even true in the US, once
you get past the idea that only a person wearing "full mating plumage"
counts as a cyclist.

- Frank Krygowski

GaryG wrote:


I guess my experience with them is different than yours.

Carrying them around? Not a problem (they sit nicely on my head).

Keeping clean? Again, not a problem - a quick spritz of water on the straps
and pads and they're good to go.

Mess up hair? Not a problem for me :-).

Can be hot? Sounds like you've not worn a modern well-vented helmet. Even
on the hottest days, overheating is rarely an issue (unless you ride very
slowly, which reduces the venting effects...perhaps that's your problem).

As is typical in these debates, it sounds like you're speaking from a lack
of experience and/or simply looking for reasons not to wear a helmet.

Or, alternately, you're basing a lot on your personal taste, not
imagining that conditions and value judgements can be very different
for other individuals.

As an illustration, back when I wore a helmet regularly, it was obvious
that the thermal discomfort varied with location. In the sunny, arid
west of America, it was less of a problem. Sweat evaporated rapidly,
keeping the sun off my head probably helped cooling, and most paved
roads are less then 5% grade, so ventilation was helped by relative air
speed.

In hot, humid, sunny Florida, I found things to be different. Riding
18 mph with bright sun pounding down was hot with the helmet and hot
without the helmet. I sweated lots either way, but at least it was
easier to keep it out of my eyes without the helmet.

In Pennsylvania's Appalachians and their foothills, it's a whole
different ball game. More cloud cover means shading the scalp has less
value. Grades over 10% mean slow climbing with little airflow.
Humidity means the sweat pads quickly soak full, then deliver stinging
bucketsful to your eyes on the short, fast downhill.

It's similar with the other issues, like "carry it around," "mess up
hair," and "keeping it clean," and "expense of helmet" and all the
rest.

But overall, the average person _must_ differ with your opinion. How
do we know? Because - once again - people have to be told, over and
over, to wear the things. Otherwise they correctly choose not to.
Only when they receive the handwringing stories, the false promises,
the ride regulations, the continuous urging and the peer pressure do
they start to wear the odd-looking contraptions.

Wearing a strong helmet in a car will
also mitigate risk -- even with seatbelts. Given that, why not wear
one?

Because there are other risk-mitigating devices present (seatbelts and air
bags).

Which, all together, get the risk of serious head injury inside a car
down to roughly the same level as a bike!


For those who somehow feel 0.17 head fatalities per million hours is
suitably low inside a car, but 0.19 HI fatalities per million hours is
way too high on a bike*, I'm curious about the following: What would
you do in this situation?

My daughter was married last summer. A good friend loaned us a
perfect, classic 1960 Buick show car as the wedding couple's
transportation.

No air bags. No seat belts. No anti-lock brakes. No side impact door
beams. No crumple zones. No padding on the dash, IIRC. Just clear
vinyl seat covers, and lots of hard chrome.

Should the bride and groom and Best Man and Maid of Honor have strapped
on some sort of helmet? Or should they have said "No thanks, we'll
just ride to the reception in something much, much more safe"?

- Frank Krygowski


* Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident
Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475