|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Apr 11, 4:27*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote: On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , * *wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , * * wrote: On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. *The caption was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their Giro line. Whooosh! Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in court. *Just ask Riddell. *Those 85% prevention claims will be tested. Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda. The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. *Where ya been? One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was not conducted by the helmet industry. Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. *Why go there again? Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of right-wing talk radio exhibit. What makes his reality the alternate one? Every statistic is promoted by a party with an agenda. None of the statistics have proven true in my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are down. I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however. People are not riding more because of helmets. Injuries probably are not down due to helmets, particularly leg injuries. I could probably tie half of these numbers to the amount of Krusteaz sold at the local Fred Meyer store. However, I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last night. I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150 degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). That is head whackage waiting to happen. 8oz of foam will help -- at least with preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Per Simon Lewis:
The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and even death. That was Liam Niewon's wife that I referred to above..... couldn't remember the name in my post. -- PeteCresswell |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Per Jay Beattie:
That's ridiculous. We all bump our heads. I've rung my bell skiing a number of times, and not on bunny slopes. People fall on the bunny slopes all the time -- it is a perpetual state of carnage. Natasha Richardson developed severe headaches an hour after the fall, along with other symptoms. She delayed follow-up for an hour or more, and she was remote from a major medical facility. She was also trending toward a higher risk category, the elderly. She was not a no-symptom case, or a fall and die case. I also question whether, with her initial symptoms (minor headache) she would have gotten anything more than an aspirin and an order to return if it got worse. Really, you need to think through a no-symptom/minor headache ER visit -- the doctor asks you if you have pain. He checks your pupils and your cranial nerve response. He looks for blood in your ear canals (and at the quality of your eardrums, which is secondary). He judges your speech and orientation and asks if you were knocked out. If your clinical picture is benign, you go home -- with a big bill and an order to take some Tylenol and call back if symptoms worsen. It's not like "House" where a magical doctor determines that there are sinister implications to a totally benign exam. You're not going to get a CT scan unless you are very old. If you are an MD (which seems pretty plain from the post), then I call that one a "Keeper". Thanks. -- PeteCresswell |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Per Frank Krygowski:
...magic protection. Until hearing from a couple of EMTs and nurses over the winter, I had been doing my non-MTB riding bare-headed. Now I'm trying to wear the helmet 100%. Hot weather will tell.... Seems to me like there are extremes in cycling environments. So far, nobody has drawn a distinction between one extreme: riding down a bikeway along a river (i.e. grass on each side of the path, no curbs, no proximity to traffic) and the another extreme: going downhill though a rock garden full of baby heads. Like I said before, I profess no expertise - and probably don't have that much functioning grey matter left - but I'd say that immersing ones' self in scenario B without head protection is high-risk. Scenario A.... I'm still flip-flopping on... As far as what is in-between.... -- PeteCresswell |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote: On Apr 11, 4:27*pm, Tom Sherman °_° wrote: On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , * *wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , * * wrote: On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. *The caption was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their Giro line. Whooosh! Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in court. *Just ask Riddell. *Those 85% prevention claims will be tested. Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda. The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. *Where ya been? One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was not conducted by the helmet industry. Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. *Why go there again? Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of right-wing talk radio exhibit. What makes his reality the alternate one? Every statistic is promoted by a party with an agenda. None of the statistics have proven true in my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are down. I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however. People are not riding more because of helmets. Injuries probably are not down due to helmets, particularly leg injuries. I could probably tie half of these numbers to the amount of Krusteaz sold at the local Fred Meyer store. However, I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last night. I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150 degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). That is head whackage waiting to happen. 8oz of foam will help -- at least with preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle. -- Jay Beattie. Dear Jay, Just to remind you, the typical serious head injury in a bicycle accident is a rotational injury, not a skull fracture. A bicycle helmet increases the chance of that kind of injury. And if the 8 ounces of foam are distributed on the front, top, back, and two sides, how many ounces of sytrofoam lie between your skull and whatever it might hit? I've always wondered why most of the styrofoam is on the _back_ of the bike helmet. Aerodynamics? Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:41:04 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: Per Frank Krygowski: _If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Seriously - Isn't that clear? Maybe it was covered somewhere and I didn't see it, but the first thing that jumps into my mind is the World War I anecdote where some government (Great Britain?) introduced protective helmets for their troops and saw the number of head injuries skyrocket. The explanation being that soldiers that would have been dead without the helmet were showing up in hospitals. Dear Pete, That's an interesting situation, but it doesn't really apply to the New Zealand bike study. The question that you raise is whether helmets shift injuries so well that their effect is masked. Riders who previously were killed are now saved by helmets, but still badly injured enough to show up at the hospital. Those riders replace the victims who used to survive and show up at the hospital, but are now so well protected by helmets that they don't go to the hospital and vanish from the statistics. The reason that this doesn't apply to the New Zealand study is that it silently assumes that the death toll drops--lots of riders who used to die in accidents now survive and go to the hospital. But the death rate didn't drop in the New Zealand study. It's a case of what seems like an obvious solution failing to produce the expected results. As an analogy, in the World War I anecdote, the killed-in-action figures would have dropped if soldiers who were previously killed began to survive and show up in the hospital. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:42:51 +0200, Simon Lewis
wrote: ANY head injury which is more than a tap should be checked out. The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and even death. Suggesting that someone telling someone to have a head injury checked is "fear mongering" borders on the criminally insane. Dear Simon, Richardson was taken to a hospital within 3 hours of her accident. Unfortunately, it didn't save her. "On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell while taking a skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, about 130 kilometres (81 mi) from Montreal. The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left.[17] Refusing medical attention, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache. She was transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur, Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours after the fall.[18][19] The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March.[1] An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident.[17]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha...jury_and_death Every member of a high-school football team refuses to be carried off the field in a stretcher after apparently much worse impacts. Carl Fogel |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:42:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. Why go there again? Do you really expect to obtain a rational answer from him? I didn't, so the kill-file was the easiest solution. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 12/04/10 11:42 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
snip Seems to me like there are extremes in cycling environments. So far, nobody has drawn a distinction between one extreme: riding down a bikeway along a river (i.e. grass on each side of the path, no curbs, no proximity to traffic) and the another extreme: going downhill though a rock garden full of baby heads. The distinction is drawn every time someone brings up cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, but the people bringing it up as an example of why helmets are unnecessary don't get the fact that there are different cycling environments. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 34 | December 16th 07 11:13 PM |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 15 | December 12th 07 04:14 AM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | General | 20 | November 14th 06 05:14 PM |
How about a Marin bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | UK | 6 | November 9th 06 04:59 PM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | Australia | 3 | November 9th 06 02:23 AM |