Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

In article ,
says...
At
the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
effective.


And that is about the limit of what can rationally infer from the data.
All the other breast-beating is speculation.

Rick

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:
While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.



Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?


The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
guards -- the works?

He'd already quoted you the British Medical Journal.



Hadron Quark wrote:


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

--

Eric wrote:
Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

Any idea why nobody thought of this before?


'Cause it's called a "straw man argument."

On 10 May 2006 07:58:27 -0700, wrote:


1) In 1988, it's likely there were more true hardshell helmets in use
than today. I think few helmet fans would deny those would be more
protective in certain types of crashes, and less likely to stick to
pavement than today's microshell hats.

I'd speculate that the typical helmet in use in 1988 was more
protective than helmets nowadays in terms of dealing with impacts --
as you said they were more substantial. But good helmets today seem
to fit much better, which might help with protection.

So which is safer overall? I'm not sure.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
running:
5) more prone to slip stream

This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
stability problem due to "slipstream."

The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.

I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among
many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to
be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream"
even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing.

6) more prone to cross winds

Ditto.

Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are
clearly very lucky.

If someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that
contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it
thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck.

I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult
as you're pretending, either.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.


One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
(Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
well-developed, westernized urban area.)

Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.

Read the paper and see the numbers.



Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.

If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak
capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But
population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case.
Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not
beneficial.

Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to
motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should
devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more
preventable head injuries there, by far.

But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of
head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary.

- Frank Krygowski

Hadron Quark wrote:

"Oh for gods sake" not a complaint? Really?

If it's obvious that there's a speed crossover between those on foot and
those on bikes then it makes sense that speed is not a reason to always
be wearing a hat on a bike but not on foot. Yet you have suggested it is.

I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them.

So why respond to Cathy when she asks why there is a difference between
her running and cycling as regards wearing a helmet?

Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
to move the goalposts dont you?

The primary difference between a fietspad and a busy road is the motor
traffic. So the primary accident difference in terms of what might
happen will be being hit by a vehicle or not. As far as minor falls go
there's a lot more close overtaking and less room for manoeuvre on a
fietspad.

It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're

Look at the title of this NG.

So if we're talking to cyclists, we say that despite them being at no
more particular risk than other groups, they should wear protective
helmets that the other groups don't?
What about people that do both, like the poster who started this little
sub-thread does?

Statistics : you canprove anything with them.

No you can't: you can /try/ and mislead but if the methodology is
published you *will* be found out in time if you're trying to pull a
fast one (for example, 85% effectiveness of cycle helmets).

Your statement above amounts to "La la la I can't hear you" in lieu of
actually looking into the matter as objectively as you can. That
doesn't do /anybody/ any favours.

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/

In article ,
Peter Clinch wrote:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

The site is too frustrating to navigate without Java
script enabled; and I will not enable it. I am not even
interested in trying to find an email address to express
my preferences.

--
Michael Press

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:
While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should
probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit
my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.



Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?


The point is that WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO WEAR ONE. If you fall,
you're just as likely to break an arm, etc. Why not mandate elbow
guards -- the works?

There you go again...either illustrating that you're a dimwit, or a troll.

Who's forcing you to wear one? Who said anything about mandatory helmet
wear?

GG

wrote in message
ups.com...

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

Hadron Quark wrote his attempt to prove cycling is more dangerous than
running:
5) more prone to slip stream

This is fearmongering. Adult cycling since 1972, I've _never_ had a
stability problem due to "slipstream."

The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.

I've commuted to work since 1977 and bike America coast to coast, among
many other things. I've been passed almost every way it's possible to
be passed, I imagine. I've never had any problem with "slipstream"
even in North Dakota's 30 mph winds with semi-trailers passing.

6) more prone to cross winds

Ditto.

Im just bringing things up that may or may not affect people. You are
clearly very lucky.

If someone won a contest once, they might be lucky. If they win that
contest three times, they might be very lucky. If they win it
thousands of times and never lose, it's not luck.

I'm good on a bike. Everyone says so. But the game isn't as difficult
as you're pretending, either.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.


One place to look is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet
Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.
Robinson retrieved data for fatalities and serious head injuries for
her area of Western Australia, plus data on time people spent as
bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicle travelers, and motorcyclists.
(Lest someone get the wrong impression, we're talking about a
well-developed, westernized urban area.)

Serious head injuries were _more_ likely per hour for pedestrians than
for cyclists. Of course, almost all pedestrians were, I assume,
walkers. Seems likely it would be even worse for runners.

Read the paper and see the numbers.



Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.

If I _were_ going to hit, _and_ if the impact were within the very weak
capabilities of a bike helmet, it _might_ be beneficial. But
population data makes it clear that must only rarely be the case.
Apparently, in the bulk of such collisions, the helmet is not
beneficial.

Personally, I think it's more likely to be beneficial to peds and to
motorists hitting their heads than to cyclists. So I think you should
devote your energy to promoting pedestrian helmets. There are more
preventable head injuries there, by far.

But I know. You're not interested in preventing the greatest number of
head injuries. You're merely interested in making cycling sound scary.

- Frank Krygowski

So you're saying that the effect of striking one's head upon the ground
while wearing a cotton cycling cap would be the same as (or possibly safer
than?) striking the ground while wearing a helmet?

Or, are you suggesting that the cotton cycling cap can somehow prevent
injuries in the first place (accidents that would occur were one to wear a
helmet)?

GG