|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
|
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Ozark Bicycle wrote: Sid wrote: While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall, you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow guards -- the works? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
He'd already quoted you the British Medical Journal. Hadron Quark wrote: Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the coat peg? -- |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Eric wrote: Hadron Quark wrote: writes: You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data. - Frank Krygowski Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the coat peg? Any idea why nobody thought of this before? 'Cause it's called a "straw man argument." |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Hadron Quark wrote: writes: Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than running: 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. I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream" even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing. 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 someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck. I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult as you're pretending, either. Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. 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. 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. If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not beneficial. Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more preventable head injuries there, by far. But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary. - Frank Krygowski |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Hadron Quark wrote:
"Oh for gods sake" not a complaint? Really? If it's obvious that there's a speed crossover between those on foot and those on bikes then it makes sense that speed is not a reason to always be wearing a hat on a bike but not on foot. Yet you have suggested it is. I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. So why respond to Cathy when she asks why there is a difference between her running and cycling as regards wearing a helmet? Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like to move the goalposts dont you? The primary difference between a fietspad and a busy road is the motor traffic. So the primary accident difference in terms of what might happen will be being hit by a vehicle or not. As far as minor falls go there's a lot more close overtaking and less room for manoeuvre on a fietspad. It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're Look at the title of this NG. So if we're talking to cyclists, we say that despite them being at no more particular risk than other groups, they should wear protective helmets that the other groups don't? What about people that do both, like the poster who started this little sub-thread does? Statistics : you canprove anything with them. No you can't: you can /try/ and mislead but if the methodology is published you *will* be found out in time if you're trying to pull a fast one (for example, 85% effectiveness of cycle helmets). Your statement above amounts to "La la la I can't hear you" in lieu of actually looking into the matter as objectively as you can. That doesn't do /anybody/ any favours. 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/ |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
In article ,
Peter Clinch wrote: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 The site is too frustrating to navigate without Java script enabled; and I will not enable it. I am not even interested in trying to find an email address to express my preferences. -- Michael Press |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com... Ozark Bicycle wrote: Sid wrote: While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall, you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow guards -- the works? There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll. Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet wear? GG |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
wrote in message
ups.com... Hadron Quark wrote: writes: Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than running: 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. I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream" even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing. 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 someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck. I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult as you're pretending, either. Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. 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. 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. If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case. Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not beneficial. Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more preventable head injuries there, by far. But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary. - Frank Krygowski So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet? Or, are you suggesting that the cotton cycling cap can somehow prevent injuries in the first place (accidents that would occur were one to wear a helmet)? GG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Children should wear bicycle helmets. | John Doe | UK | 516 | December 16th 04 12:04 AM |
Bicycle helmets help prevent serious head injury among children, part one. | John Doe | UK | 3 | November 30th 04 03:46 PM |
Elsewhere, someone posted this on an OU forum | Gawnsoft | UK | 13 | May 19th 04 03:40 PM |
BRAKE on helmets | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 62 | April 27th 04 09:48 AM |
Compulsory helmets again! | Richard Burton | UK | 526 | December 29th 03 08:19 PM |