A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No Helmets Needed?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 5th 06, 09:20 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

Peter Clinch wrote:


As Steve Scharf suggests, this is probably about insurance. In the UK
various insurers have tried threatening cyclists with contributory
negligence claims when they've been injured while not wearing helmets,
but as yet none of these have been successfully pressed. The main
cycling organisation here, the Cycle Touring Club, has quite rigorously
acted against such claims.


Well, bravo I say! This reminds of the gall one damned bitch-on-wheels
had when I caught up with her after she swerved right in front of me to
cut into a parking lot: she didn't even try to defend herself, she
simply wanted to know why *I* wasn't wearing a helmet!

Had to put her down when she started to say "****"...I asked her,
pointing to her five kids in the mini-van, "you still want to ****?
You haven't had enough yet?"

Motorists don't know how lucky they are I'm only on pedal-power!

Depends what sort of falling off. A sideways slide on gravel is at
least as easy, where flying over the bars is very difficult. On average
I find I don't fall off any sort of bike very often except a mountain
bike, and that's more a function of the terrain I'm not doing a very
good job of than the bike!


Well, me too -- I fall off my bike like once every eight years (but
when I do, it's so stupid...going really slow, too! And I still manage
to draw blood...go figure) -- but, "all other things being equal," it
seems like by being closer to the ground one simply puts one's foot
down to stop any imbalance foreshadowing a fall.

Helmets will work by load spreading and energy absorption. The latter
will generally be far more effective than the former because there's
only so much head you can spread the load over, and the neck will often
take the whole lot at some point in any case. Polystyrene is actually
pretty effective as an absorber, but it remains the case that in the
sort of accidents that will get you killed it isn't good enough.


Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then
my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed
or brain-impaired!

Helmets have a track record of not doing anything much to rates of
serious injuries in cycling populations, though I certainly wear mine if
I go mountain biking because I expect to fall off and at the sort of low
speeds the EN1078 spec is built to actually tangibly help. If you think
you'll fall off wear a lid to prevent a nasty graze and a headache, but
don't assume there's much chance of it saving your life.


Natch -- didn't think so.

Stronger in the sense of ability to break it in your hands, yes, but
better capable of absorbing energy? Unlikely.


Great point.

Most helmets made of
tougher stuff have quite a bit of absorbing material as well as the
shell, or have a fair bit of extra room and a cradle to spread the
impact (like a site or climbing helmet, where it's a pretty safe
assumption a primary impact will come from above)


Which kinds are these? If I'm gonna wear a helmet, it might as well be
the best.

BTW, I can see myself wearing a 5-lb. K-Pot on a bike (US Army kevlar
helm). What's five pounds? I easily eat four or five at a rest stop.

Nothing stopping you organise your own rides, of course.


Sure -- I hereby announce the First Annual NYC ARBR Ed Dolan Memorial
'Bent Jamboree! You must bring a girl along, though, even if she's
only your sister. And last one out is a rotten eggplant!

One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different
performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be
slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a
problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy
circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at
a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to
speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you
can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group.
Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though.


Many thanks for the wonderful insight. I am into group rides, but I
don't do them since I don't wear a helmet and...I rather prefer to
already know the people.

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/


Ads
  #22  
Old January 5th 06, 09:41 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


SMS wrote:

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,


Baloney - assuming you mean, as you usually do, the people using "junk
science" are those who disagree with the Thompson & Rivara methods that
predicted 85% benefit. Most of the people who _disagree_ with studies
like T&R have looked into their methods and data far more deeply than
those who agree with the study!

How many pro-helmet people realize that T&R's "case" and "control"
groups were different in many important ways beyond the presence of a
helmet? How many people realize that the presentations to T&R's ER had
a much higher percentage helmet wearing than the general population
(meaning the people with helmets were _more_ likely to show up in the
ER)? How many people realize that T&R's calculation methods also
"prove" that helmets prevent over 70% of serious leg injuries?

And most of all, how do those people explain the fact that the fantasy
protection figure of 85% has never, not once, been approached in any
jurisdiction that got lots of cyclists to wear helmets?

There is a lot of "ignoring" going on, but it's not by the people you
think.

and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population.


You have yet to explain how (after a mandatory helmet law) helmet
wearing can suddenly increase from 30% or less to over 70%, with no
detectable benefit in head injuries per rider, unless the helmets are
not working. Pretending "other factors" coincidentally wiped out all
the helmet benefit in the very same year of the law seems delusional at
best.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for.


I've waited for years for your explanations to counter the points I
made above. You've never given them. Perhaps it's because you "lack
understanding" of those points?

- Frank Krygowski

  #23  
Old January 5th 06, 09:49 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
On 5 Jan 2006 12:19:15 -0800, NYC XYZ wrote:

My suspicions precisely, though I also have to agree that they "can't
hurt."


Then I suspect you haven't read a great deal of the research.

There are reasonably foreseeable mechanisms by which they could hurt
(if, by that, you mean make the net injury in a given incident more
serious than were the party involved not wearing a helmet). There are
a number of easily foreseeable mechanisms by which they could make
average net injury per mile cycled worse.

Some of the statistical evidence suggests that they do (on average)
'hurt'. Quite a bit of the statistical evidence suggests they 'hurt'
when compulsion is introduced.

Or they might indeed not hurt, but it's not valid to say that they
can't help but be better than not wearing a helmet.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
  #24  
Old January 5th 06, 10:00 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


Edward Dolan wrote:
Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are.


Like these folks?

http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~edwinsel/misc_monuments.htm

http://oregonfuture.oregonstate.edu/gallery/29.html

http://www.ron-karpinski.com/ron-bio...-bicycling.htm

http://www.travelexcel.ca/pages/main...bicycling.html

http://tinyurl.com/b9prr

How _dare_ they actually ride a bike without wearing the American sport
cylcists' "full mating plumage"??


Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to
me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid
strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier.

I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we
have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little
ignorant.

- Frank Krygowski

  #25  
Old January 5th 06, 10:10 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


NYC XYZ wrote:


Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then
my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed
or brain-impaired!


From riding a bicycle? Forget about it.


Before Bell had a commercial product to sell, and began (through Snell
and Safe Kids) the big propaganda attack, nobody associated bicycling
with serious head injury. Nobody worried about it because it
essentially never happened.

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

And it's not just because people don't cycle much. On a per-hour
basis, walking anywhere near traffic has more serious head injuries per
hour than cycling. Riding inside cars is roughly equal to cycling in
serious head injuries per hour.

Helmet manufacturers, their trade associations, and the "safety"
societies they donate big money to (like, for example, Safe Kids Inc.)
have falsely portrayed ordinary cycling as a tremendous source of
serious head injuries. Don't fall for it.

- Frank Krygowski

  #26  
Old January 5th 06, 10:16 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

NYC XYZ wrote:

Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you
think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then
again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even
if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases.


It protects the officers of the club, it protects the ride leader, and
in the case of our club protected the city that allowed us to use a
meeting room, on the condition we had liability insurance. IIRC, we
changed to the insurance from LAW because it was much cheaper than
buying insurance on our own from an agent. This was sometime in the
1980's, when the liability insurance rates for allegedly dangerous
activities went up. I remember the local Sierra Club Rock Climbing
activity section losing insurance coverage through the Sierra Club, and
having to make the club into a group that got together for meetings and
parties, with all activities done not as official activities.

Prior to the insurance company making the decision on compulsory helmets
for the club, we had periodic debates regarding helmets. On one side,
were the ride leaders, including myself, that thought that it should be
a decision of the ride leader whether or not to require helmets, while
on the other side we had the do-gooders that wanted to pass more rules
to make everything safe for everybody.
  #27  
Old January 5th 06, 10:21 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


wrote:
And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.


Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source?

And don't you see a bit of a logical problem with the data if it is
current? Since one can safely assume that the % of cyclists that wear
helmets is much higher than the % of motorists or folks hanging out at
home one possible interpretation of such data would be that helmets
were successfull in yielding an extremely low serious head injury rate.
I'm not claiming that is so, just suggesting a possible interpretation
frrom the snippet you present.

And of course the rates would have to be normalized for the amount of
time etc in each activity. I think we can all agree that on average the
average person spends more time in the house than riding a bike and
certainly the vehicle miles per person and/or vehicle hours per person
are highr than similar rates for cycling.

  #28  
Old January 6th 06, 12:47 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


"Mike Rice" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:53:50 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

[...]
Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to
come
to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common
sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many
cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their
noggins.

It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection.
Case
closed!

[...]

Those noggins have been saved mainly from scrapes, cuts, and bruises.
H*lm*ts are made to a laughably low standard.

[...]

That is good enough for me! I do not want to have my noggin scraped, cut or
bruised.

Again, case closed!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota



  #29  
Old January 6th 06, 01:04 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:


Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as
his
signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear
something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it
might just save your life some day.


Can't hurt, I know.

So, back to my oddly-shaped head: what do you do for that? I have a
flat back of the head, and these helmets don't fit in the manner
they're supposed to in order to be effective.

I dunno. I'll just wear them Kraut helmets like the Hell's Angels.


I like to wear a horse riding kind of helmet for my recumbent cycling. They
look sharp, you can fit them perfectly and they are not expensive. Most bike
helmets these days are for racers and look just awful. Esthetics count after
all.

Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he
does
and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no
way
this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly
suspect
he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free
Internet access.


Well, there definitely is such a thing as Medical Physics in health
care, and Officer is an offical title, though I don't recall the IT
part (could it really just be Info Tech?).


Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this? It has nothing to
do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about
himself. Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know
who I am.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #30  
Old January 6th 06, 01:15 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are.


Like these folks?

[...]

Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to
me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid
strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier.

I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we
have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little
ignorant.


I gave up on the esthetics of bike helmets years ago. They are designed with
racers in mind, not tourists like myself.

I like to wear the kind of helmets that are designed for horse riders. I
think they look quite elegant, they fit nicely and they are not expensive.
What is not to like about them? However, I think they will only work for
recumbent cyclists, not upright cyclists.

I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling.
Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on
Usenet.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ General 206 January 16th 06 02:08 PM
Bicycle helmets help prevent serious head injury among children, part one. John Doe UK 3 November 30th 04 04:46 PM
Does public health care pay for your head injuries? John Doe UK 187 November 30th 04 03:51 PM
Convincing people to use helmets Oliver Keating UK 391 February 25th 04 12:50 PM
Compulsory helmets again! Richard Burton UK 526 December 29th 03 09:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.