I crash into religion

jtaylor wrote:
"H. Guy" wrote in message
...


p.s.: i don't cross against the light, drink milk past the
expiration date, play "tag" with rottweilers or argue with
my girlfriend when she says we NEED a new chair.

Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar?

See? You're an illogical jerk /without/ the subject being MHLs.

HTH, BS

Paul Cassel wrote:
jtaylor wrote:


But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle - such
events are more likely when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar.
Why do you wear a helmet in the less dangerous situation but not the
more?
I don't see wearing a hat as relying on a talisman as you write
earlier. I am not relying on anything. My reason for using a helmet
from now on is that I have learned by experience how forceful a
bicycle crash can be. Before, I figured a bicycle crash was a mild
occurrence. I now don't think that.

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be
better off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you
that. Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my
bike. I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least
somewhat by that than never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

Disagreeing with an over-emotional ideologue.

HTH, BS

"jtaylor" wrote: Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a
motorcar?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll answer your rhetorical question with one of my own: Does your bicycle
have a seatbelt, shoulder harness, airbag and crush zone in front?

On Mon, 08 May 2006 03:04:15 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"jtaylor" wrote: Do you wear a helmet when driving (or being driven in) a
motorcar?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll answer your rhetorical question with one of my own: Does your bicycle
have a seatbelt, shoulder harness, airbag and crush zone in front?

Dear Leo,

His point is probably that bicycles have a much better
record than cars when it comes to deaths and serious head
injuries, despite their lack of such safety equipment.

It's as if bicyling is inherently safer than driving on just
about every scale of measurement.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Paul Cassel wrote:


What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.


You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.

- Frank Krygowski

Paul Cassel wrote:

Again, what is the downside here?

Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.

Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
cyclists.

Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of them.

So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote:


What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd
be better off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant
you that. Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my
bike. I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least
somewhat by that than never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect
is known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the
certification procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied
head in a direct drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to
toppling off your stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.


You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike
helmet might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.

Condescend much?

in message , Paul Cassel
') wrote:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is
the downside of helmet use?

Statistically, an increased risk of death and serious injury. No, I don't
know why. It may simply be that people are more likely to wear helmets
when doing things they know to be risky. Or it may be a consequence of
the helmet increasing the size and weight of the head, or of increased
rotational injury.

Anecdotal data doesn't help much in understanding this. But here's an
anecdotal data point which might interest you. Two weeks ago I was out
with a group doing Mountain Bike Leader training, and I was wearing a
helmet - something I very rarely do.

I fell. My back wheel lost grip on a fast muddy bend and I went down
hard. My head - or rather my helmet - hit the ground for the first time
ever, after literally thousands of mountain bike falls. It was, as such
falls often are, quite sudden and I had little time to react to it. I
obviously can't say for certain that had I not been wearing a helmet my
head would not have hit the ground. But it's interesting that it did.

Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike.
I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat
by that than never wearing the hat?

Not if wearing a hat increases your chance of getting killed. Which, on
current statistical data, seems to be the case. A lot more serious study
is needed here, but nobody seems to be doing it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Hot day? Bike path? Baseball cap.

Even though bike paths are more dangerous than roads?

No sense being obsessive about this.

No sense in getting the facts wrong, either.

But helmets definitely have their time and place.

Indeed. They could be considered if cycling seriously off-road when
falling over is par for the course. They would also, if worn by car
occupants, be more beneficial than if worn by cyclists.

R.

Paul Cassel wrote:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use?

There is evidence that cycle helmets, particularly the ones with
elongated peaks and rear peaks, can cause sharp twisting of the head in
a crash. This can lead to serious brain damage.

There is evidence that cycle helmet wearers are more likely to be
seriously injured/killed than bareheaded cyclists.

There is evidence that increased helmet use leads to decreased cycling
numbers, as wearing a helmet sends the message that cycling is a
dangerous activity, which it isn't. Decreased cycling numbers leads to
increased cyclist death/injury rates for the cyclists that remain.

See www.cyclehelmets.org for the references to the above evidence.

These are the downsides.

The upside, as far as I can see, is that it protects you against some
minor head injuries (bruising, scrapes).

It doesn't seem to me that their benefits outweigh their disbenefits.

R.