Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Please! My news reader won't let me collaps threads!

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

writes:

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:22:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:



I believe the MHL in California applies to those under 18 - is that
the driving age in that state?

The driving age is 16 - if the helmet law is for under 18 as
opposed to under 16 or 16 or under, I made an "off by one" error
(to use the common software-engineering term), not that it makes
any significant difference.

And as for the use of the term "only" - there are over 10 million
residents who are currently required to wear a helmet while cycling;
California passed the first MHL in the United states, and has
continued to expand the number and situations where people must do so.

Huh? There has been no helmet legislation that I'm aware of that does
that. Some parks have required helmets on off-road paths, but that is
only possible because the path is not a facility covered by the CVC
(California Vehicle Code). The CVC specifically prohibits local
jurisdictions from regulating anything the CVC covers except when the
CVC provides explicit authorization to do that (e.g, for no-parking
zones). It is illegal for any jurisdiction to require that adults
(people over the legal age limit) use helmets while cycling on any
road.

As to "over 10 million residents", that is just rhetoric. You are
basically complaining about children. An Austrailian study showed
that mandatory helmet laws are cost effective for children in that
the medical cost reductions are higher than the cost of a helmet
purchase. This may reflect the sometimes eratic behavior of
children or the amount and type of bicyling they do. That doesn't
seem to be true of adults.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:


We know that having to wear a helmet puts people off cycling.


That's actually not true except during a transitional time period.
People who grew up using a helmet from early childhood tend not
to have any hangups about it as it just becomes a habit.

Where you might see a strong negative reaction is when you tell a 13
year old boy that he'll have to wear a helmet when he previously
didn't have to. At that age, he'll naturally be rebellious, so he may
decide not to ride a bike at all as a way of asserting some
independence.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
.. .
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

My only response to this thread is about the same as before.

Everybody's an expert.

Especially you.


Have you ever been run over by a train and cut in two without head
injuries and the top half jumped up and said "I'm fine."? I saw the
results of human versus car and human versus Semi and helmet or not, all
the pieces scattered around were DEAD. My wife and her 2 children by a
first husband (wife beater) saw a drunk try to hop a train and he missed
the handrail. He went right under the wheels on the bridge and there were
people trying to picnic down there with human body parts falling on them.
The major part of his liver fell in the exact middle of their cloth. His
head, unhurt, was about 50 feet away, without a helmet.
The fire department was called not to render aid and sew him back
together, but to pick up all the pieces and hose off both the tracks and
the beach. Since this happened before I met my wife in 1977 all I can say
is that it happened sometime in the 1970's in Santa Cruz, Ca.

Do yah think a brain bucket would have saved him?
Maybe they wrote it up as pedestrian killed, no helmet.

Why do you think your example proves anything?

In the real world know perfection is impossible. We always must live with
what can be achieved.

Jack May wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
.. .
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

My only response to this thread is about the same as before.
Everybody's an expert.

Especially you.


Have you ever been run over by a train and cut in two without head
injuries and the top half jumped up and said "I'm fine."? I saw the
results of human versus car and human versus Semi and helmet or not, all
the pieces scattered around were DEAD. My wife and her 2 children by a
first husband (wife beater) saw a drunk try to hop a train and he missed
the handrail. He went right under the wheels on the bridge and there were
people trying to picnic down there with human body parts falling on them.
The major part of his liver fell in the exact middle of their cloth. His
head, unhurt, was about 50 feet away, without a helmet.
The fire department was called not to render aid and sew him back
together, but to pick up all the pieces and hose off both the tracks and
the beach. Since this happened before I met my wife in 1977 all I can say
is that it happened sometime in the 1970's in Santa Cruz, Ca.

Do yah think a brain bucket would have saved him?
Maybe they wrote it up as pedestrian killed, no helmet.

Why do you think your example proves anything?

In the real world know perfection is impossible. We always must live with
what can be achieved.


All I was alluding to is that while a bicycle helmet marginally
increases your chances of survival is that if you go under a car, truck,
or train, you are dead, helmet or not. I have a helmet but it only would
help me if I went straight down on my head, in which case I might break
my neck Christopher Reeves style. There is a critical area all around
the bottom of a bicycle helmet where a strike to the skull could be
deadly. Forehead, temples, ears, and most critically the back of the
neck where all the autonomic parts of the brain are. A broken skull in
the direct back of the head is a guaranteed death sentence if that part
of the brain is damaged badly enough, and it doesn't take much there.
Bill Baka
Maybe a cross between a full motorcycle helmet and a bicycle helmet?

wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Are you sure?

Your father, bless him, in search of the truth went and did the same
thing without a helmet, and died?

For a motor cycle rider or a bicycle rider not to wear a helmet is like a
car owner cutting out the seat belts and air bags in order to express his
freedom.

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:23:40 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


We know that having to wear a helmet puts people off cycling.


That's actually not true except during a transitional time period.

Cite?

writes:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:23:40 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


We know that having to wear a helmet puts people off cycling.


That's actually not true except during a transitional time period.

Cite?

http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf#search=%22Australia%20bicycl ing%20rates%22
has a table that shows a substantial decline the year after the
Australian MHL was introduced but with an increase in cycling the year
after (it just shows the second year, however). Others have reported
an increase after an initial drop, so you should check usenet archives
for old posts.

Also Personal observation (family/relatives with children in the
appropriate age groups) - what you snipped:

People who grew up using a helmet from early childhood tend not
to have any hangups about it as it just becomes a habit.

If you check all the claims that "having to wear a helmet puts people
off cycling", you'll find that they originated immediately after
helmet laws went into effect and do not include data on whether there
was a rebound a few years later.

You should also be very careful about what you find via a google
search. Google's search algorithm favors pages with lots of links to
them, and the result on "hot-button" topics is that the pages
maintained by the ranters can be the ones you primarily see.
Curiously, a google search of "Australia bicycling rates" showed up a
lot of web pages about helmets, including "Bicycle Helmet FAQ" near
the top even though that is maintained by a rabid anti-helmet crackpot
last I checked.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:33:07 GMT, "george conklin"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Are you sure?

Your father, bless him, in search of the truth went and did the same
thing without a helmet, and died?

For a motor cycle rider or a bicycle rider not to wear a helmet is like a
car owner cutting out the seat belts and air bags in order to express his
freedom.


I've never been hot about wearing a helmet until my neighbor was hit
by a van and his head hit the pavement. He appeared to be okay for
about a week but then began experiencing headaches and blurred vision.
He went to the emergency room and found out he had swelling and blood
on the brain from the accident. He's getting around better now but he
can't walk without a cane and can barely spend much time out of the
apartment without experiencing severe fatigue; it isn't a pretty
picture. That changed my opinion about wearing a helmet while riding.

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious -- what happens to the styrofoam if a helmet is dropped on
the floor from, say, handlebar height? How /exactly/ does it fracture
or fail? And if currently available helmets are so fragile, what good
are they?

If you drop one once or even maybe a few times, it'll look okay. But
the question is: what will happen if you take a hard impact and need
the helmet. Is it still okay?

No.

My question is: What happens to a helmet that renders it needing
to be replaced if it falls on the floor?

Note I didn't even qualify between a carpeted living room floor
or a concrete-slab basement floor. Heretofore nobody else has, either.

The foam can compress, break apart,
fracture, etc. under the plastic shell and you'd never know it.

/How/? What deformations does it incur? And why are bicycle helmets
allowed to be so frail?

And as I previously asked -- if bicycle helmets are so fragile,
what good are they?

Hello? Hello-oh!! Is there anybody out there to answer my questions?

Especially the one about how if a bicycle helmet is so fragile that
it must be replaced if dropped on the floor, what good is such a frail
structure while riding?

Hey, gawd-f***ing dammit, I live in a jurisdiction where I
either have to wear a glorified styrofoam egg-carton on my
head while riding, or pay a punishing fine if I don't.

So tell me -- what tangible benefits to I get from being
legistatedly forced to wear a glorified egg carton on my head
while riding, tbat's so useless that it has to be replaced if
I drop it on the floor?

It gratifies the egos of the helmet nannies that they have used the
power of the state to enforce their will on you. For this we must be
thankful. Remember, NEVER let science and logic triumph over
faith-based belief.

As for accidentally dropping helmets on the floor, it seems
to me that styrofoam is not glass.

The magical powers of the foam hat are dissipated by contact with the
floor.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.