I'm going to participate without a helmet...

Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to encourage
actual safe riding.

I'll probably do the ride without registering and wearing a cap,
starting an hour late--as congestion is a lot more dangerous than
anything else.

http://cumberlandrivertrail.org/ride.htm

Later on in the day, I'll probably do funnycar racing in front of the
local Sonic. It'll be safe as long as we wear athletic cups, right?

landotter wrote:
Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to encourage
actual safe riding.


Around here, they almost always specify that all participants must
wear H*lm*ts certified by ANSI or Snell, although 99% of them are CPSC
certified these days. So almost everyone is "illegal" anyway.

Art Harris

"landotter" wrote in message
...
Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to encourage
actual safe riding.

I'll probably do the ride without registering and wearing a cap,
starting an hour late--as congestion is a lot more dangerous than
anything else.

http://cumberlandrivertrail.org/ride.htm

Later on in the day, I'll probably do funnycar racing in front of the
local Sonic. It'll be safe as long as we wear athletic cups, right?

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event "featuring"
heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the anti-helmet folk will often
concede that a helmet might have some value in a very low-speed
collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of slowly-moving bikes). That such
situations are rare and thus not worthy of reason to promote mandatory
helmet use is not being questioned. It's just ironic that this might
happen to be one of those times. :-)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"landotter" wrote in message
...
Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to encourage
actual safe riding.

I'll probably do the ride without registering and wearing a cap,
starting an hour late--as congestion is a lot more dangerous than
anything else.

http://cumberlandrivertrail.org/ride.htm

Later on in the day, I'll probably do funnycar racing in front of the
local Sonic. It'll be safe as long as we wear athletic cups, right?

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event "featuring"
heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the anti-helmet folk will often
concede that a helmet might have some value in a very low-speed
collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of slowly-moving bikes). That
such

Or in normal rush hour traffic, or pedalling to the shops.

situations are rare and thus not worthy of reason to promote mandatory
helmet use is not being questioned. It's just ironic that this might
happen to be one of those times. :-)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

It is ridiculous to claim that a small child falling off a bike and
cracking their soft skull against a kerb would not be better off with a
good helmet.

I sometimes wonder what planet some of you are on.

On Oct 15, 1:14*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event "featuring"
heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the anti-helmet folk will often
concede that a helmet might have some value in a very low-speed
collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of slowly-moving bikes).

It is certainly true a helmet _might_ have _some_ value in a very low-
speed collision like that. The question is, how likely is such a
collision? And how much value does the helmet have, how often?

If you think it's absolutely worth wearing, I suppose that's fine -
but then you'd better not meditate on the dark, dark days of the 1970s
and early 1980s, when I did many such rides. The horror of all those
cyclists wearing (gasp!) cotton caps would make you tremble!
http://www.tosrv.org/00/photos/oldphotos/70group750.jpg

And then there are the present-day running events, where those foolish
joggers _still_ accept the risk of falling to the ground! Why, if
_one_ fatality from tripping on a shoelace can be prevented...!
http://blog.syracuse.com/healthfitne...e_marathon.jpg

I know, I know - we shouldn't discuss other risky activities. It's
BICYCLING that's so dangerous. That's why these guys are all now dead
of head injuries:
http://tinyurl.com/yggw8kb
http://tinyurl.com/yz2y9ub

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Oct 15, 1:14*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event "featuring"
heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the anti-helmet folk will often
concede that a helmet might have some value in a very low-speed
collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of slowly-moving bikes).

It is certainly true a helmet _might_ have _some_ value in a very low-
speed collision like that. The question is, how likely is such a
collision? And how much value does the helmet have, how often?

If you think it's absolutely worth wearing, I suppose that's fine -
but then you'd better not meditate on the dark, dark days of the 1970s
and early 1980s, when I did many such rides. The horror of all those
cyclists wearing (gasp!) cotton caps would make you tremble!
http://www.tosrv.org/00/photos/oldphotos/70group750.jpg

And then there are the present-day running events, where those foolish
joggers _still_ accept the risk of falling to the ground! Why, if

I'm beginning to think you did take a knock. First you think car drivers
should be prosecuted even if its clearly the cyclists fault and now you
suggest a cushioned unbreakable shell would not protect your skull in
the advent of clipping a kerb or a pedestrian and coming off your bike.

_one_ fatality from tripping on a shoelace can be prevented...!
http://blog.syracuse.com/healthfitne...e_marathon.jpg

It would be amusing if you weren't serious.


I know, I know - we shouldn't discuss other risky activities. It's
BICYCLING that's so dangerous. That's why these guys are all now dead
of head injuries:
http://tinyurl.com/yggw8kb
http://tinyurl.com/yz2y9ub

You're crackers Frank. Please tell me you are trolling.


- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Simon Lewis wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"landotter" wrote in message

om...
Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to
encourage actual safe riding.

I'll probably do the ride without registering and wearing a cap,
starting an hour late--as congestion is a lot more dangerous than
anything else.

http://cumberlandrivertrail.org/ride.htm

Later on in the day, I'll probably do funnycar racing in front of
the local Sonic. It'll be safe as long as we wear athletic cups,
right?

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event
"featuring" heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the
anti-helmet folk will often concede that a helmet might have some
value in a very low-speed collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of
slowly-moving bikes). That such

Or in normal rush hour traffic, or pedalling to the shops.

Your beer cooler on your head is not going to protect you from a FedEx
truck.

situations are rare and thus not worthy of reason to promote
mandatory helmet use is not being questioned. It's just ironic that
this might happen to be one of those times. :-)

It is ridiculous to claim that a small child falling off a bike and
cracking their soft skull against a kerb would not be better off with
a good helmet.

Good grief. A child young enough to have a soft skull should not be on
a bicycle, period. Fortunately the skull hardens in infancy. Where do
you come up with this nonsense?

I sometimes wonder what planet some of you are on.

The feeling is mutual when you put pout whacky arguments like this.

The discussion about the value of helmets is not about children with
soft heads, it's about adults whose use of a bicycle puts them well
beyond the effective parameters of the protective effect of helmets.
And that, fearmongering for profit aside, there is little evidence that
styrofoam helmets provide a significant benefit to adults. Kids are
generally small enough and going slow enough that helmets could
conceivably provide some useful protection.

Perhaps you're a young 'un who grew up with helmets. I'm old enough to
have been a bicyclist before the introduction of the Bell V-1. Prior to
that date, riding a bike was a safe and fun activity. The day after the
V-1 was introduced, bicycling was a horribly dangerous activity that was
sure to end with your brains being scrambled. The only thing that
changed was the marketing of a helmet which changed the perception of
risk- riding a bike was just the same.

I believed that crap myself, once upon a time. Argued vociferously in
favor of helmets in this very newsgroup, too. With the understanding of
a few facts (including what a small amount of energy a bike helmet is
designed to absorb), my views have changed. If you think it's useful to
you to wear a helmet, then go right ahead (no pun intended). If you
don't, then that's fine too.

In article ,
Simon Lewis wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Oct 15, 1:14*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event
"featuring" heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the
anti-helmet folk will often concede that a helmet might have some
value in a very low-speed collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of
slowly-moving bikes).

It is certainly true a helmet _might_ have _some_ value in a very
low- speed collision like that. The question is, how likely is
such a collision? And how much value does the helmet have, how
often?

If you think it's absolutely worth wearing, I suppose that's fine -
but then you'd better not meditate on the dark, dark days of the
1970s and early 1980s, when I did many such rides. The horror of
all those cyclists wearing (gasp!) cotton caps would make you
tremble! http://www.tosrv.org/00/photos/oldphotos/70group750.jpg

And then there are the present-day running events, where those
foolish joggers _still_ accept the risk of falling to the ground!
Why, if

I'm beginning to think you did take a knock. First you think car
drivers should be prosecuted even if its clearly the cyclists fault
and now you suggest a cushioned unbreakable shell would not protect
your skull in the advent of clipping a kerb or a pedestrian and
coming off your bike.

"Cushioned unbreakable shell?" Umm, Simon? Have you actually ever held
a bicycle helmet in your hands?

On Oct 15, 12:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
*Simon Lewis wrote:



"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"landotter" wrote in message

om...
Ashland City is preparing for its annual Cumberland river ride
tomorrow. The website says *twice* that one cannot expect to
participate without a helmet. However, no mention is made to
encourage actual safe riding.

I'll probably do the ride without registering and wearing a cap,
starting an hour late--as congestion is a lot more dangerous than
anything else.

http://cumberlandrivertrail.org/ride.htm

Later on in the day, I'll probably do funnycar racing in front of
the local Sonic. It'll be safe as long as we wear athletic cups,
right?

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event
"featuring" heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the
anti-helmet folk will often concede that a helmet might have some
value in a very low-speed collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of
slowly-moving bikes). That such

Or in normal rush hour traffic, or pedalling to the shops.

Your beer cooler on your head is not going to protect you from a FedEx
truck.

situations are rare and thus not worthy of reason to promote
mandatory helmet use is not being questioned. It's just ironic that
this might happen to be one of those times. :-)

It is ridiculous to claim that a small child falling off a bike and
cracking their soft skull against a kerb would not be better off with
a good helmet.

Good grief. *A child young enough to have a soft skull should not be on
a bicycle, period. *Fortunately the skull hardens in infancy. *Where do
you come up with this nonsense?

I sometimes wonder what planet some of you are on.

The feeling is mutual when you put pout whacky arguments like this.

The discussion about the value of helmets is not about children with
soft heads, it's about adults whose use of a bicycle puts them well
beyond the effective parameters of the protective effect of helmets. *
And that, fearmongering for profit aside, there is little evidence that
styrofoam helmets provide a significant benefit to adults. *Kids are
generally small enough and going slow enough that helmets could
conceivably provide some useful protection.

Perhaps you're a young 'un who grew up with helmets. *I'm old enough to
have been a bicyclist before the introduction of the Bell V-1. *Prior to
that date, riding a bike was a safe and fun activity. *The day after the
V-1 was introduced, bicycling was a horribly dangerous activity that was
sure to end with your brains being scrambled. *The only thing that
changed was the marketing of a helmet which changed the perception of
risk- riding a bike was just the same.

I believed that crap myself, once upon a time. *Argued vociferously in
favor of helmets in this very newsgroup, too. *With the understanding of
a few facts (including what a small amount of energy a bike helmet is
designed to absorb), my views have changed. *If you think it's useful to
you to wear a helmet, then go right ahead (no pun intended). *If you
don't, then that's fine too.

Meh.

I used to be in charge of shipping ... as many as a half-million glass
vases/year ... of various thicknesses, strengths, and weights (among
other products shipped).

Styrofoam/EPS is a PHENOMENAL way to reduce shock impact.

Virtually no risk. Clearly SOME reward.

I also think there are other risks that people may wish to consider
than full force impacts with moving vehicles.

Straw man, there? Maybe.

And I wear mine ... but could give a **** if others don't.

"Simon Lewis" wrote in message
...

First you think car drivers
should be prosecuted even if its clearly the cyclists fault

I'd be interested to see a cite for that. MessageId?