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

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:52:18 -0700, "GaryG"
wrote:

Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west
coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for
the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer
on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips).

Could you clarify this? Of all people you see riding bikes --
regardless of what they ride/smoke/etc -- do the vast majority wear
helmets? If so, that's interesting.

Where I live -- New York City -- it's not clear to me what the
situation is. I can't easily get a fix on it -- I'd guess it's abut
half but I could be way off -- it could easily be as little as a
quarter wear helmets. Or it might be a bit more than half.

Gary's comment sure rings true for Southern California. (In fact, I think
I
wrote something quite similar a few days ago.)

Other than people on "comfort" bikes riding the wrong way on sidewalks,
the
vast majority of cyclists I see are helmeted. I'd say at least 80% on the
road; close to 100% off-road.

It's still quite unusual to see someone on a true "road bike" without a
helmet. (Once every...two weeks maybe.)

I'd say around the SF peninsula, about 90% of the people wearing lycra and
riding road bikes for recreation or sport wear helmets. About 15% of the
adults wearing regular clothes and riding bikes to get to work or for
errands wear helmets. (I don't see the mountain bikers on trails, so I don't
know if they are wearing helmets or not.) 90% of the kids have helmets on
their heads no matter where they are going. 25% of the kids have them
strapped on and seated properly so they would be somewhat effective.

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tony Raven wrote:
Cathy Kearns wrote:

Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The
other
decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered
junior
high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding
at age
11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away
to
school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California
adults
(age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)



Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose
mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and
there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit.


I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when
she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a
helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later,
that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but
did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had
to wear a helmet?

That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't
have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons.
My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may
be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But
otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . .
that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy
to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride
just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie.


Yes, she did say she was quitting because she didn't want to wear the
helmet. It's not that helmets look dorky. It's that even after you take
the helmet off for the day you look dorky until you can restyle (blow-dry,
hot iron, whatever) your hair. And that is not an option at school. And no,
it's not like she got to drive to school instead.

I know real helmet enthusiast tend to poo-poo the hair thing. But I
remember asking my hair stylist if she could recommend a hair style that
would withstand a bike helmet. Note, I'm not that picky about hair style,
heck, I drive a convertable, wind blown is just fine. I was going on a tour
of France, and when I got off the bike to tour the towns and cathedrals I
just wanted to look presentable. She had no answer at all. She had a few
other clients that were semi pro lady cyclists, and even the pony tail look
still gave them matted ridges after a long ride.

After my daughter gave up her bike I started thinking about it. And I found
that, since I have car keys, if I had just showered and finally wrestled my
hair into submission I would drive rather than ride my bike to do errands,
even when it would obviously be faster to ride the bike. (We have a ton of
cut through paths around here, routes on a bike are often much shorter than
the same route in a car. Also parking around shops and schools are such
that parking a car would require a much longer walk than parking a bike.)
So then I started to think about the helmet, and whether I needed it to run
errands on the same streets I'm willing to walk or run on without a helmet,
and decided if the deciding factor for biking or driving was really the
helmet, I'd just leave the helmet at home and ride the bike. The safety
factor of the helmet was offset by the extra exercise I was getting.

Note: when I do personal risk assessments I take into account I've been
biking for many years, including the 4+ years I went to college in Davis. I
have never fallen and hit my head while on a bike. I have hit my head on a
curb while running and knocked my self out taking a flying header into the
ice playing broom ball. Neither time was I wearing a helmet. Neither time
did I die. (Though the injuries from the fall while running did look
suspiciously like I wiped out on a bike, road rash all the way down one
side...) 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.

I'll take your word on the girl thing. I rode across the United States
with a girlfriend who wore a helmet -- back in '81 when they were not
popular. She never let out a peep about her hair, which was pretty
short and always seemed to look good. My wife raced for years (until
she got a movement disorder) and always wore a helmet. She never said
anyting about her hair, which seems to live a life of its own anyway.
She got knocked out in a race and thought a helmet was a good idea --
and so did the USCF, so it wasn't an option for her racing. I have
never hit my head while walking or running. The only place I have hit
my head apart from cycling is skiing and while cooking (killer
cupboards). I have a ski helmet (it keeps my ears warm), and I am
considering a cooking helmet with spoon holders. I also have a shower
helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to ****
off Frank and Tony. My walking helmet has a sign on the side that says
"please, oh please, pass a walking helmet MHL . . . . walking is more
dangerous than bicycling!" -- Jay Beattie.

wrote:
Sorni wrote:
wrote:
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.

Which is /what/, Frank? Helmets in cars? I thought helmets are of
no use whatsoever in preventing fatal head injuries?!? (Gosh this
gets confusing.)

I'm not surprised you find it confusing, Sorni. I'll try to help.

Bike helmets are severely limited by the need to be very light, well
ventilated, provide some protection over the entire "scalp" surface,
and be fairly inexpensive (i.e. they can't cost as much as the
vehicle).

Car helmets don't need the same ventilation, since the person isn't
exerting himself and probably has air conditioning. The ones that
have been proposed (and yes, they have been seriously proposed) don't
cover the entire scalp; they are just bands around the forehead.
This works inside a car because the dynamics of the body colliding
with the car's insides are much more controlled, due to seatbelts.
Weight isn't such a problem, since the neck isn't so cantilevered.
Storage isn't a problem, as it can be for cyclists doing dual-mode
commutes - just lock the helmet in the car. Also, car helmets may
not have to deal with such a severe impact. They're just for the
secondary impact of the seat belted, air bagged occupant with the
inside of the car.

All in all, a car helmet can have a hard shell, thicker styrofoam, yet
(because of reduced need for vertical protection) still have fairly
light weight. It can offer some real protection.

Want to learn more? Oh, sorry - of course you don't! ;-)

But those that do can check out:

McLean A.J., Fildes B.N., Kloeden C.J., Digges K.H., Anderson R.W.G.,
Moore V.M. & Simpson D.A., Prevention of head injuries to car
occupants: an investigation of interior padding options, Federal
Office of Road Safety - Report CR 160, NHMRC Road Accident Research
Unit, University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research
Centre

And in showers? Walking? (Thanks for the insults, BTW. You just can't
help yourself.)

wrote:
GaryG wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west
coast and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for
the "cyclists" who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer
on the handlebars with a cigarette dangling between their lips).

:-) There you go! Perfect!

The cyclist you see all wear helmets. Except the ones that don't wear
helmets, and they don't count, because if they don't wear a helmet,
they aren't really cyclists!

FWIW, this is one of the reasons that people conducting surveys need
training - to remove the effects of circular reasoning.

Frank, who puts down illiterate waitresses as having no value (or certainly
less than his own), suddenly aligns himself with the beer-toting butt-toking
DUI wrong way riders on sidewalks! What a man of the people! LOL

Michael Press wrote:

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.


http://www.athletics.mcgill.ca/sport...article_id=714
Soccer Headgear: Does It Do Any Good?
By JERE LONGMAN

Published: November 27, 2004 Associated Press

Most soccer players on the Santa Clara University women's team will
enter the N.C.A.A. quarterfinals today wearing protective equipment -
headgear - that is as controversial as it is lightweight.

In the 15 months since FIFA, soccer's world governing body, began
permitting its use, headgear has been worn by thousands of American
players from youth leagues to high schools to colleges to the pros. The
headgear gained international visibility during the 2003 Women's World
Cup and the Athens Olympics this summer.

This has triggered skepticism within the United States Soccer
Federation, which contends that marketing to the fears of parents has
trumped science regarding the effectiveness of headgear in preventing
concussions.

This resistance has not dissuaded some youth clubs from requiring the
use of headgear.

"I remember when baseball players didn't wear batting helmets," said
Steve Ryan, commissioner of the Major Indoor Soccer League, which
approves of headgear. "You see some resistance in soccer, which is
natural. But I expect, over time, you will see it broadly accepted."

The founder of a San Diego-based company called Full90 said he had sold
100,000 pieces of headgear. The headgear resembles an enlarged headband,
weighs less than 2 ounces, and covers the forehead, temples and
occipital bone in back of the head. The device is made of
shock-absorbing foam situated between an outer layer of Lycra and an
inner layer of sweat-absorbing polypropylene. Several models are
available for $24 to $39.

Full90 does not claim that its headgear prevents concussions. But the
company does say the headgear can reduce, by up to 50 percent, the peak
impact forces that occur during typical collisions when a player's head
strikes another head, the ground, an elbow or a goal post.

The headgear debate is occurring at a time when some studies indicate
that concussions occur in soccer at a rate similar to the rate in football.

There also is disagreement on whether heading the ball can cause
concussions or long-term brain impairment. Studies have presented
contradictory results, and the matter remains disputed as the soccer
federation undertakes a long-term examination of head injuries.

The resolution of these head-related issues could have far-reaching
health and financial impacts, given that nearly 18 million people play
soccer in the United States.

On one side of the headgear argument is Jeff Skeen, founder of Full90.
He said he developed the protective device after his daughter Lauren
suffered two soccer-related concussions in high school, causing her to
quit the sport.

At 46, Skeen possesses the righteousness of the aggrieved parent. He
believes his product can reduce head injuries without giving an illicit
advantage in heading the ball.

The soccer federation, which permits headgear but does not endorse it,
fears that its wide use would undermine the assertion that soccer is a
safe alternative to football, Skeen said. He likens the doubt of soccer
officials to familiar but failed arguments once made against the use of
bicycle helmets, automobile seat belts and soccer shin guards.

"They are trying to thwart the evolution of headgear in soccer because
they think it will scare soccer moms away from the sign-up table," Skeen
said of soccer federation officials. "And because they think it could be
viewed as an admission that heading the ball itself is dangerous."

Calvin Williams, founder of the Kangaroo headgear company, said he
thought soccer officials resisted the equipment because they felt "it is
sissified."

Soccer federation officials disagree, saying their caution is based on
scientific uncertainty.

Insufficient independent evidence exists to confirm that headgear can
reduce the risk of head injuries, they say. Doctors affiliated with the
federation also say that headgear is being marketed primarily to
children, who least need them because there is little incidence of
concussions in players under the age of 12.

Players might develop a false sense of security, relying on headgear
instead of proper medical evaluation after suffering a concussion,
federation doctors say. Or, they say, players might feel invincible in
headgear and play with reckless aggressiveness, displaying behavior
known as the Superman effect.

Rather than headgear, federation officials advocate better technique,
stricter rules enforcement and improved officiating to reduce the number
of head injuries. Some also recommend mouth guards and padded goal posts
instead of padded headgear.

"There is no evidence headgear are going to help, and some theoretical
stuff that it could hurt," said Dr. Gary Green, a clinical professor at
the U.C.L.A. division of sports medicine who is on the soccer
federation's medical advisory committee. "Why take a chance until this
gets studied?"

Because Full90 pays some pro players (the equivalent of $50 to $100 per
game, it says) and some state soccer associations ($4,000 to $10,000) to
endorse its product, the soccer federation says the company's claims are
suspect.

"We're talking about marketing and fear and manipulation," said Dr. Bert
Mandelbaum, team physician for the United States national teams.

Not all medical soccer experts oppose headgear.

Dr. J. Scott Delaney of McGill University in Montreal said laboratory
data, not yet published, does indicate that headgear could reduce impact
forces by 10 to 30 percent. (The soccer federation says this involves
low-level forces that don't cause concussions.) Delaney said an industry
standard for headgear has been drafted and could be instituted in May.

In a study, published in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine,
Delaney queried 328 Canadian university football players and 201
university soccer players as they reported to fall training camp in
1999. He found that 70.4 percent of the football players and 62.7
percent of the soccer players had experienced symptoms of a concussion
in the previous year.

"We've shown concussions are a problem, and in the lab these things
work," Delaney said of headgear. "What else do you need? Why wouldn't
you start protecting people?"

Studies involving large numbers of players can occur only after headgear
is used widely, said Delaney, who is team physician for the McGill
soccer team and the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League.

The concern over concussions, and whether headgear can protect against
them, is a growing issue for youth soccer associations. In September,
the New York State West Youth Soccer Association, which governs more
than 200 clubs and 80,000 youths in the Buffalo-Rochester area, voted to
require headgear for all players under 14.

The association later retreated over concerns about liability and
protests from some coaches and officials. Several coaches interviewed in
Rochester wondered why headgear were proposed for young children and not
for older teenagers, who are more likely to get concussions.

Others said risk was inherent in any sport.

"Where are you going to draw the line? Make everyone wear knee braces?"
said Tom Maines, who coaches an under-10 boys team in Brockport, N.Y.

Some players resist headgear on aesthetic grounds.

"It looks goofy," said Brittany Myles, 13, of Syracuse.

Ross Paule, a midfielder for the Columbus Crew of Major League Soccer,
wore Full90 headgear for a dozen games in the recently completed season,
seeking some security after suffering three earlier concussions.

"I'm on the fence," said Paule, who was not paid to endorse the
headgear. "I don't agree it should be mandated. If something makes you
comfortable, why not?" He added: "I can't tell you if it was a huge
help. When I got hit one time, maybe it gave me a little extra cushion."

Any club or association that makes headgear compulsory risks losing its
affiliation with the United States Soccer Federation, Dr. S. Robert
Contiguglia, its president, said.

But that threat is either unknown or ignored by the Temecula Valley
Soccer Association in Southern California, which for three seasons has
required headgear for players under 8. Peter Schilperoort, president of
the association, said headgear prevented bumps and cuts previously
suffered by his players, calling the equipment "the best thing since
sliced bread."

The De Anza Force soccer club of Cupertino, Calif., will require
headgear for players under 17 beginning in March, said Tom Pridham, a
club official. Both the Temecula and De Anza clubs are sponsored by Full90.

Jerry Smith, coach of the Santa Clara women's team, which received free
headgear from Full90, said the equipment made his players more confident
in challenging balls in the air, and more assertive, but not overly so.

Anson Dorrance, who has coached the women's team at North Carolina to 18
national championships, said compulsory use of shin guards had not
changed the nature of soccer, as many feared. He predicted that headgear
would not, either.

"I'd challenge any of these doctors who feel this has no value to run
into the goal post without a Full90 and with it, then tell me, if they
were forced to do it a third time, whether or not they would wear it,"
said Dorrance, whose team is also sponsored by Full90.

Several players, including Joy Fawcett of the United States women's
national team, who endorses Full90, discounted the so-called the
Superman effect, saying the headgear did not make players dangerously
aggressive.

"It's like a flag that reminds you not to go up for stupid plays," said
Jill Conaboy, a defender at Downingtown West High in suburban
Philadelphia, who wore headgear last weekend as her team won the
Pennsylvania Class AAA state championship.

Kathy Conaboy, Jill's mother, said she held no illusion that her
daughter, who has suffered two concussions, would never be hurt again
while wearing headgear. What she hopes, she said, is that a blow that
might have caused a third concussion will result in only a bruise.

"A seat belt is not going to save a life in a 90-mile-per-hour crash
into a wall," Kathy Conaboy said. "A 30-mile-per-hour crash, a fender
bender, it helps. I'm looking at this as a seat belt."

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

GaryG wrote:

Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast
and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists"
who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a
cigarette dangling between their lips).


And their head injury rate is over twice as high as here in the UK where
about 20% wear helmets and six times higher than the Netherlands where
virtually no-one wears a helmet. And that despite the population and
traffic density of the UK and Netherlands being 8 and 13 times higher
than the US. Go figure.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Jay Beattie wrote:
I also have a shower
helmet, a walking helmet, a car helmet -- but I only wear those to ****
off Frank and Tony.

You being consistent would not **** me off at all. And the ones that
think cycling is so much more dangerous than any other every day
activity that it needs special protective clothing mainly bemuse me
except when they start campaigning to enforce their choice on others.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven writes:

GaryG wrote:
Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west
coast
and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists"
who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a
cigarette dangling between their lips).


And their head injury rate is over twice as high as here in the UK
where about 20% wear helmets and six times higher than the Netherlands
where virtually no-one wears a helmet. And that despite the
population and traffic density of the UK and Netherlands being 8 and
13 times higher than the US. Go figure.


This rate is relevant to number of cyclists is it?

Noone rides bikes in the UK. In the netherlands they have flat cycle
paths everywhere and everyone cycles.

Hadron Quark wrote:

Noone rides bikes in the UK.

I saw several of these non-existent people this morning. Cycle use has
been booming in London since the congestion charge was introduced. Last
I heard London was part of the UK...

In the netherlands they have flat cycle
paths everywhere and everyone cycles.

The perception of fietspads being /everywhere/ is actually false: there
are plenty of places in NL where cyclists and motorists share road space.

But why let mere facts get in the way of a good argument?

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:

Who has said cycling is much more dangerous?

If it /isn't/ then why does it merit special head protection?

I thought this thread was
about whether a helemt would protect one.

The two aspects are very much intertwined where safety equipment is
concerned, despite your insistence that it's sensible to differentiate
them completely. There is no end of measures in most day to day
activities that will protect people but which aren't used because the
dangers are too low to make it worth the bother.

Why are you constantly
shifting to discussing whether walking is more dangerous than cycling

To demonstrate that whether you have something that will protect you
isn't the end of the argument (though even if it was, there's problems
with the assumption that a cycle helmet /must/ be at least neutral or a
benefit). If it /was/ the end of the argument then it would logically
apply to walking to, but since it clearly doesn't questions about why it
doesn't are raised.

(which it clearly isnt reagardless of how many ridiculous statistics you spout).

So how do all those people end up with injuries which they collect at a
higher rate per unit distance than cyclists?

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/