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
  #11  
Old January 5th 06, 05:59 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

NYC XYZ wrote:
Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of
helmetless riders?

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the
ground as it is....

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?

Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and
lighter than styrofoam?

NO NO NO not another helmet thread!

Ken
Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one.
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/



Ads
  #12  
Old January 5th 06, 06:00 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

In article . com, NYC
XYZ ) wrote:

Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no?
I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the
ground as it is....


More times than I can count. Wet leaves, errant motorcars, over-
enthusiastic cornering, sudden tyre blow-outs... And the closer one is
to the ground when it decides to let go, the harder it is to catch any
slide...

I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why
not wear a real helmet?


By which I presume you mean something like a motorcycle helmet? Weight
and lack of ventilation, mostly.

Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and
lighter than styrofoam?


URL:http://tinyurl.com/78ows ?

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post Office.
  #13  
Old January 5th 06, 06:50 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

NYC XYZ wrote:

I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only,
like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection
in STYRO-FOAM!!!!!


It's one of the best materials for impact absorption, that holds its own
shape. The fact that it is inexpensive may bother you, but it's widely
used for impact absorption. What are you looking for? A helmet with
air-bags? "http://www.sheldonbrown.com/airbag-helmet.html"
  #14  
Old January 5th 06, 06:52 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:

----------clip----
Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of
the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so
much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced
to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary
compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
education.


This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true

I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the
key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give
new meaning to the term "junk science".

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

  #15  
Old January 5th 06, 07:09 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

wrote:

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true


It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

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,
and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These
studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

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.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.
  #16  
Old January 5th 06, 07:35 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

SMS wrote:

It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

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,
and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These
studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

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.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.


Well stated.

Rich
  #17  
Old January 5th 06, 07:53 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?


"SMS" wrote in message
...
wrote:

This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
propaganda is in written form may be true


It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

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, and looks
solely at whole population studies without taking into account the myriad
of other factors that can affect the whole population. These studies are
superficially impressive, including seemingly precise statistical
calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet the fundamental
criteria for science, rather they try to look at various variables, and
create inferences that are not based on the data.

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.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I found out
how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not sure if this
poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really has fallen for
the junk science.


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!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota



  #18  
Old January 5th 06, 09:19 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

wrote:


It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure.

I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB
sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_
require helmets, and we were not told to do so.

That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the
LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their
organized rides:

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements.


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.

I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of
the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true
believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids"
promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on
those blurbs.


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

But given my funny-shaped head -- old Army "battle buddies" (that's an
official term, no joke!) used to say that it looked like someone hit me
in the back of the head...with an anvil! -- I haven't come across a
helmet yet which adjusts properly to be effective as prescribed.

- Frank Krygowski


  #19  
Old January 5th 06, 09:19 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No Helmets Needed?

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.

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?).

Do any of us here really need to know his phone number (with extension no
less) and his fax number? If he wants to tell us that he is from Dundee,
Scotland, that is fine and all we would ever have to know about him. But he
is crazy - and you listen to him at your peril.


Hmm...reminds me of the Cretan Paradox...LOL!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota


So what else do you like to do in your spare time?

  #20  
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?

Ack! Just set your phasers on "stun," okay?



Ken M wrote:

NO NO NO not another helmet thread!

Ken
Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one.
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/


 




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 05:45 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.