Scientific American does bicycle helmets

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:05:32 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
be clever enough to assemble them?

Ozark ain't that bright - his must be a pre-assembled one.

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Gooserider" wrote in message
...

"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
. ..

"Gooserider" wrote in message
...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...

"Gooserider" wrote

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my
helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull.
:-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably
did help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the
pavement with your helmet in contact with a rough surface.
That situation is less clear cut.

Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?

I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches
are just part of life.)


He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above
the brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.

Ahh, additional information is always helpful.

Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.

He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly
prevented serious injury.


Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost
certainly has the potential to end one's life.

Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
life." At least be consistent in your baiting.

Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****.


HTH

As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come
very close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a
fairly common cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe.

Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here.

Read what you wrote: "Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen,
even on a bike." It isn't.

HTH

Simon Brooke wrote:

And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
be clever enough to assemble them?

Well, looking at an on-line translator the Swedish for bridge is
"brygga" and entering that into the IKEA website returns the following
item, which might suite the mentality of a troll.

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00060763


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun.
There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
life." At least be consistent in your baiting.

Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****.

Helmet discussions are FUN!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
life." At least be consistent in your baiting.

Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****.

Helmet discussions are FUN!

As much fun as bickerfests with yer Significant Other.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:



On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web hehttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2-99DF-3594A60...
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days.


Figures you would be the aforementioned "some idiot" to cross post to
URC.

Do you spit or swallow, Sherman?

On Oct 10, 11:55 am, Neil Brooks wrote:

I hate this topic ... like many other people do.

Then why bother reading it, and why bother posting to it? It's not a
mandatory topic, you know!

I don't care what
you wear or don't wear, but ... until you've spent any time in the
Netherlands (I was there for 3wks last year), please spare me the
comparisons between their country and ours vis-a-vis helmets.

In THEIR country, there is a legislative bias IN FAVOR of cyclists
that has -- over decades -- permeated into the culture.

THEIR country doesn't have a hill worth talking about in 90% of its
geography. That means that EVERYBODY bikes ... because everybody CAN
bike.

That means that EVERYBODY who operates a CAR ALSO has a pretty good
chance of being a CYCLIST. THAT means they're more in tune with the
cyclist and their needs.

We're not Holland ... and Holland isn't us.

I don't disagree with anything you said about Holland. However, if
you're implying that therefore, Americans (or Brits, or Australians,
or anyone else) should wear helmets, your post has done nothing to
prove that.

And it still remains true that the incidence of helmet wearing across
countries seems to vary inversely with bicycle use. IOW, it's only
countries where cycling is rare that ordinary cycling is considered an
"extreme sport," needing protective gear.

Yet there is, AFAICT, no country where ordinary bicycling's risk of
serious head injury rises to a level to justify helmet use.

- Frank Krygowski

Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , Tom "Johnny
Sunset" Sherman ') wrote:

Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.

Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(

Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days.

And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
be clever enough to assemble them?

get them cold enought they get dangeriously intellectual.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com