A different look at the helmet debate: was cycling links -

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:00 GMT, "Robert Haston"
wrote in message
et:

My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how
incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle.

Check.

This 2-3 cm of
foam crushing is the last item in a long chain of much more powerful
opportunities to avoid injury.

Check

To me the biggest risk in cycling is people who think all they need to do
regarding bicycle safety is to put on a helmet.

Check

Consider that 90% of bike fatalities are actually car fatalities, since
the
car does the killing, and that most are from multiple trauma.

Check

We used to teach them bicycle safety, now "bicycle safety" programs are
often just people handing out bicycle helmets. That's the real problem to
me.

Check

I agree 100% with every word you say, Robert. An AOL post, I know,
but you said it so well I just had to say "amen to that". Especially
the last point: the arrogation of the cycle safety agenda by helmet
monomaniacs flies in the face of every analysis I have ever seen of
the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions, all of
which, to my knowledge, put helmets last.

Guy

Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains
"checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is
as nutty as he is.

But that is what is wrong with Usenet and groups like ARBR. All the nuts and
screwballs come out of the wood work with their half baked theories. Guy
most likely does not want to wear a helmet because it will muss up his hair.
A lot of idiotic women cyclists are like that too.

The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is
a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Listen
to Guy Chapman and you will be as dead as he is going to be someday from a
head injury due to a bike accident.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Wise and All-Knowing - Minnesota

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:22 -0600, Mr. Ed wrote in
message :

Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains
"checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is
as nutty as he is.

Really? What proportion of serious head injuries do you think helmets
prevent? To the nearest 10%, please. Preferably with citations for
the evidence supporting the figure.

How would you rate the relative merit of traffic safety measures,
traffic law enforcement, rider and driver training, lighting and
conspicuity measures, bike maintenance initiatives, and helmet
promotion, as measures to improve cyclist safety? Give your best
estimate of the relative weightings.

The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is
a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed.

Correct. And the majority of helmet zealots have very little learning
indeed. Some of them still quote the 1989 Seattle study, for example,
despite the fact that it is Clearly ********.

How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:22 -0600, Mr. Ed wrote in
message :

Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains
"checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets
is
as nutty as he is.

Really? What proportion of serious head injuries do you think helmets
prevent? To the nearest 10%, please. Preferably with citations for
the evidence supporting the figure.

There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world
knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your
credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and
have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That
is all anyone ever has to know.

How would you rate the relative merit of traffic safety measures,
traffic law enforcement, rider and driver training, lighting and
conspicuity measures, bike maintenance initiatives, and helmet
promotion, as measures to improve cyclist safety? Give your best
estimate of the relative weightings.

There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world
knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your
credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and
have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That
is all anyone ever has to know.

The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning
is
a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed.

Correct. And the majority of helmet zealots have very little learning
indeed. Some of them still quote the 1989 Seattle study, for example,
despite the fact that it is Clearly ********.

There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world
knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your
credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and
have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That
is all anyone ever has to know.

How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

None, nor do I plan to. Why reinvent the wheel? Bike helmets are necessary
for the same reason that motorcycle helmets are necessary and for the same
reason that race car drivers also wear helmets. It protects the old noggin
in the event of an accident.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Man Who Knows All - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ...
How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

None, nor do I plan to. Why reinvent the wheel? Bike helmets are necessary
for the same reason that motorcycle helmets are necessary and for the same
reason that race car drivers also wear helmets. It protects the old noggin
in the event of an accident.

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
om...
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...
How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

None, nor do I plan to. Why reinvent the wheel? Bike helmets are
necessary
for the same reason that motorcycle helmets are necessary and for the
same
reason that race car drivers also wear helmets. It protects the old
noggin
in the event of an accident.

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't. Next question!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:31:43 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't.

And yet vastly more permanently disabling brain injuries are sustained
by motor vehicle occupants. Go figure!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

snip
Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't. Next question!


Agree on the cyclists and motorcyclists part, but race cars have highly
evolved roll cages and other safety equipment, that certainly includes
helmets, for the drivers. That's what allows them to walk away from those
horrendous 150 mph crashes into concrete walls.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ...

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't. Next question!

Correct, they do which causes head injuries. IF we had a law for
helmets inside the car this wwould reduce head injuries from
thecurrent standing.

By cycling you ARE REDUCING your chance of health risks. By not
cycling you increase the chances of health risk (Assuming you don't
jog, or get other cardio exercise).

Edward Dolan wrote:

"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
om...
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...
How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

None, nor do I plan to. Why reinvent the wheel? Bike helmets are
necessary
for the same reason that motorcycle helmets are necessary and for the
same
reason that race car drivers also wear helmets. It protects the old
noggin
in the event of an accident.

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't. Next question!

Which race car drivers don't have those monkey bars around them
in their race cars? You know the ones that you don't see in the
normal motorist's car?


--

-TTFN

-Steven

"Ken_in_Michgan" wrote in message
om...
[...]

....Everyone should
be free to decide to wear one or not to for themselves. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE SHOULD PASS HELMET LAWS FOR CYCLISTS (EVEN
THOSE THAT RIDE HARLEY DAVISONS). We should keep the state our of our
lives as much as possible.

Sorry Ken, but I sure don't agree with you about that. People have to be
protected from their own stupidity - and that is the job of government. I
would pass laws requiring helmet use by cyclists and motorcyclists and
anyone who didn't agree with me could spend the rest of their life in jail
contemplating the error of their ways. This would have the added benefit of
keeping them off our roads and highways and thereby not incurring any health
care for their inevitable accidents.

Have you ever noticed that stupid people are thorough going stupid. I mean,
they do not have one shred of intelligence. Most of them have their brains
in their testicles so they are in effect sitting on their brains when they
are riding their bikes. Maybe that is why they think they do not need to
wear a helmet.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota