Helmet saves...

Beaker wrote in message ...

Having "hat hair" beats having "wind-hair", IMHO.

bkr

That is my husbands philosophy......he will wear a hat to avoid "wind
hair" but I think that has something to do with a receding hair line.
When men get older they begin to LOVE hats on windy days. ;-)
Personally I will take "Wind Hair" over HAT HAIR in a heartbeat. My
hairline is just fine and the wind blowing through my hair is great.
Just my opinion. BUT...(why is there always a "but".....My hair is
very long so maybe it would not be that great while trying to ride a
bike. 2nd thoughts here.
HAT HAIR...WIND HAIR....ummmmmmmm
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

Dan wrote:

Wear your helmet and shut, Austin!

plonk

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Here's a bit of confusing perspective. This is the dialog that took place
between me and the ER physician after the ambulance delivered me there.

Physician: "You're very lucky to be alive. Were it not for the incredible
shape you're in, you wouldn't be.

Me: "Indeed, the bike is responsible for the shape I'm in."

Bob C.

That's too funny. Yes indeed, that bike was responsible for both
conditions you were in. The incredible shape and the bruised and
battered shape. I guess there is an up side and a down side to
everything in life. :-)
Very witty comeback to the Doc. Can I steal it if I ever get in
incredibly good shape and end up in the ER???
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...
"AustinMN" wrote: Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of
Styrofoam that can be crushed with a finger would protect a skull (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I honestly believe that a properly shaped Styrofoam surround is capable of
protecting what is within it. That is why I drive home with eggs in a
Styrofoam container, and why most delicate products are packaged by the
manufacturers in Styrofoam. Are you aware that almost all car bumpers are
now made of such foam? It is the fact that it crushes in an orderly
manner
that provides the protection.

That does not prove that helmets prevent head injuries, but I hate to see
the wrong arguments used.


I have no doubt whatsoever that helmets can be beneficial. I believe that
every cyclist should have one and wear it.

I totally disagree with mandatory helmet laws though. The main reason for me
is that I believe my safety is helped far more by the large number of
(mostly unhelmeted) cyclists on my city's (Toronto) streets. The fewer
cyclists, the more dangerous the roads.

Helmets help, but having drivers experienced in dealing with cyclists in
traffic helps a lot more. And what would help the most is somehow making
sure all urban cyclists are properly taught how to ride safely in the city.

If politicians really cared about improving safety for cyclists, they would
fix the problem (bad drivers, bad cyclists), not band-aid the symptoms
(helmet laws).

That's what I think,

Paul

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:25:31 -0600, "AustinMN"
wrote:

Leo Lichtman wrote:

"AustinMN" wrote: If you hate to see the wrong argument used, why did you
go so far out of your way to divorce the comment from it's context (even
to the point of snipping it mid-sentence?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My snipping was not intended to alter the meaning, nor do I think it did.

First, you broke the thread (so that it becomes difficult for others to find
my original post (and learn what I actually said). Then you claim that your
clipped quote:

Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of Styrofoam that can be
crushed with a finger would protect a skull

has the same intent as my actual statement:

Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of Styrofoam that can be
crushed with a finger would protect a skull (which, by the way, is many,
many times harder than the Styrofoam hat) from that kind of trauma?

The inappropriate clip makes it sound like I am claiming helmets can't
protect one's skull. What I'm actually claiming is that a Styrofoam helmet
won't protect a skull from a trauma capable of causing a person's brains to
be squeezed out of that skull.

So either Leo hasn't a clue about the type of injuries helmets are
designed and can be reasonably expected to protect a person from or he
is quite aware and realizes that duplicity and intellectual dishonesty
in a flimsy attempt to discredit the poster are about the only tactics
he can muster against sound arguments.

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800,
,
(Maggie) wrote:

larryaus wrote:
\snip
Last week I was hit by a car
turning left right in front of me and I could not brake fast enough
without hitting the car. The woman did not stop even though she knew
she hit me. My other rider and a car chased her and stopped her. As I
fell to the left my head was hit by her rear wheel and with the helmet
on

What this newbie gets from all the accidents I am reading about is the
following.....Stay in the park so you don't get killed or get hat hair
from wearing a helmet.

What this crusty crumbly (thanks, Guy) sees is a fatal curse that
befalls posters from cyclingforums.com. There must be or else
there's prizes awarded for near-death ride stories or something. Those
guys are dangerous. I wouldn't ride with them if I were you.

To me it sounds like he hit the car. It happens, though it may have
been predictable and prevented by rider awareness and preparedness for
just such an entirely common bone headed scud stunt.

Not to be flip about all this, but all the
accident stories make me feel as if riding a bike in traffic is not
worth it. I am too old to die this young. I made it to age 50.....I'd
like to keep going.

A vehicular cycling course will help prepare you for that after you
re-gain your basic bike skills and some fitness. Stick to paths,
knowing you're more likely to have minor collisions, and quiet back
streets while you develop your confidence.

Hats can be a style statement and as such perhaps shouldn't be given
any more concern than that.
--
zk

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0500, ,
"Paul R" wrote:


If politicians really cared about improving safety for cyclists, they would
fix the problem (bad drivers, bad cyclists), not band-aid the symptoms
(helmet laws).

That's what I think,

I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles
we'll only see more of them enacted.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0500, ,
"Paul R" wrote:


If politicians really cared about improving safety for cyclists, they
would
fix the problem (bad drivers, bad cyclists), not band-aid the symptoms
(helmet laws).

That's what I think,

I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles
we'll only see more of them enacted.
--


heh heh, sad, but true in many places!!

"Maggie" wrote in message
om...
Here's a bit of confusing perspective. This is the dialog that took
place
between me and the ER physician after the ambulance delivered me there.

Physician: "You're very lucky to be alive. Were it not for the
incredible
shape you're in, you wouldn't be.

Me: "Indeed, the bike is responsible for the shape I'm in."

Bob C.

That's too funny. Yes indeed, that bike was responsible for both
conditions you were in. The incredible shape and the bruised and
battered shape. I guess there is an up side and a down side to
everything in life. :-)
Very witty comeback to the Doc. Can I steal it if I ever get in
incredibly good shape and end up in the ER???
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

I wish I could claim credit for wittiness. I didn't realize what I'd said
until after it came out. Then I thought to myself, "that was amazingly
witty for someone lying here mangled, in shock, who hasn't yet had any pain
killing drugs."

I hope you won't find occassion to use it, but if you do, I hope you can.

Bob C.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:44:49 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0500, ,
"Paul R" wrote:


If politicians really cared about improving safety for cyclists, they would
fix the problem (bad drivers, bad cyclists), not band-aid the symptoms
(helmet laws).

That's what I think,

I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles
we'll only see more of them enacted.

Yes, we will, absolutely.

Just as the CAA strongly supports "bike" paths that would force
cyclists off the road. That and helmets are the nearly sole emphasis
of 'cycling advocates', politicians (certainly here in Ontario -
particularly Toronto) and a surprisingly large number of self-loathing
cyclists.

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis