First Helmet : jury is out.

Peter Keller wrote:
So I would like the mandatory law repealed and leave it up to the
individual, and encourage measures for bicycling safety which
really work.
Peter


Yes. Laws should be instituted to protect [negligent] people from othe
people; not to protect us from ourselves. If some were to protect other
from themselves, wouldn't that be limiting their respective freedom(s)


-

angotja wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
So I would like the mandatory law repealed and leave it up to the
individual, and encourage measures for bicycling safety which
really work.
Peter



Yes. Laws should be instituted to protect [negligent] people from
other people; not to protect us from ourselves.

and also to protect society from carrying the costs of medical care - hence
(in the uk) compulsory 3rd party motor insurance against which then NHS can
recover cost of treating accident victims.

I'm not suggesting there is a parallel case wrt cycle helmets (the
probabilities are just too low to support compulsion) but your argument is
flawed.

pk

PK wrote:
angotja wrote:



Yes. Laws should be instituted to protect [negligent] people from
other people; not to protect us from ourselves.


and also to protect society from carrying the costs of medical care - hence
(in the uk) compulsory 3rd party motor insurance against which then NHS can
recover cost of treating accident victims.

I'm not suggesting there is a parallel case wrt cycle helmets (the
probabilities are just too low to support compulsion)

.... good to hear you say that...

but your argument is flawed.

Your meaning isn't clear to me. Are you saying that there _should_ be
laws to protect us from ourselves?

If so, which activities would you outlaw? How do you propose to choose
that list?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Gregory McGuire wrote:

we live as immortals until faced with our mortality. some people don't
understand what mortality is until something makes it real for them. if your
riding in a group you definitely need a helmet, cause you can never guess
what the other guy is going to cut you off.

Definitely. That's why cyclists never, ever rode in groups before 1975.

if your getting sweat in your eyes then wear a sweat band under your helmet.

Sorry, that doesn't work for everyone.

I believe that the noise is less with a helmet as compared to no helmet.

Others who have listened to their helmets believe otherwise. I expect
they know at least as much as you.

helmets can provide shade from the sun beating down on your head.

.... and can restrict evaporation of sweat, leaving the wearer hotter.
Both are possibilities.

I believe I heard it said that the aerodynamics of wearing a helmet reduces
your overall ride time.

So much belief! So few citations!

I believe wearing a helmet reduces fatigue factor on the rider, which makes
the ride more enjoyable.

See above.

on and on -

Indeed. [Horror stories snipped.]


Hey don't discourage people wearing helmets

What I like to do is give actual data on the observed effects of
helmets, as well as data on the (minimal) dangers of cycling. I prefer
data from large populations, not single person anecdotes.

The actual data convinced me that cycling is about as safe as driving or
walking near traffic. It's significantly less dangerous than many
common activities.

The actual data convinced me that helmets don't significantly increase
cycling's safety. If you really want to make cycling safer, there are
bigger fish to fry.

I'll continue putting the facts up as I find them.

Meanwhile:

Hey, don't continue to push consumer products that don't work as
advertised.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I believe that the noise is less with a helmet as compared to no helmet.

Others who have listened to their helmets believe otherwise. I expect
they know at least as much as you.

How can a helmet reduce noise anyway? Wind noise over a ventilated
helmet will be higher than over a head, as it's aerodynamically messy
and there has to be separation and turbulence around each exit vent and
inlet noise around in input vent. Unlike on a motorbike, the ears are
without exception left exposed. Unless a helmet provides laminar flow
to a region significantly behind the ears, there's no way it can be
quieter.

I rode to the office without my helmet last week. It was a damn sight
safer in trafic, as I could hear cars. It was a damn sight less safe on
the singletracks, as bashing branches out of the way with the top of my
head hurt.

ian

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:32:56 +0200, Walter Mitty
wrote:


Hmm. Just bought a cycling helmet for my last short tour which
encompassed quite a bit of city cycling. Never wore one before : don't
think I will again.

The added noise and irritation that the helment causes more than offsets
the "possible" help it gives in case of a spill by deducting from my
usual spacial awareness.

I don't know. I still refuse to believe that the helmet won't help in a
spill, but wonder if the %chance of it helping offsets the % increase
in likelihood of an accident due to lower awareness levels.

Just how does a helmet lower your "awareness" level?

My cut: Get a better helmet. I've ridden with a helmet for 30 years
without such complaints -- and I admit that I've got the "wrong stuff"
now -- I'm using a 10-year-old Bell V1-Pro when the new stuff is lighter and
probably better (yes, I am in the market for a new helmet).

Added noise -- not in my book. I've never had "noise" associated with my
helmet. Irritation may be a poor fit or a bad strap arrangement.

As for effectiveness -- in my early bicycling days, I had three
friends-or-acquaintances whom their doctor felt would not be here except for
the cushioning (and abrasion resistance) of their long hair (this was the
hippie 60's). I have to believe that a helmet provides even better
protection.

But it is your choice. At the risk of provoking a religious war (there are
pro- and anti-helmet camps. I won't engage in this particular flame-war), I
can point out that beef brains sell for what -- $4 to $5 a pound? Is this
what yours are worth :-)

- Skip

Pk wrote:
angotja wrote:
Yes. Laws should be instituted to protect [negligent] people from
other people; not to protect us from ourselves.
and also to protect society from carrying the costs of medical care -
hence (in the uk) compulsory 3rd party motor insurance against which
then NHS can recover cost of treating accident victims.
I'm not suggesting there is a parallel case wrt cycle helmets (the
probabilities are just too low to support compulsion) but your argument
is flawed.
pk


angotja's argument is not flawed as "Pk" asserts (aside - what does P
stand for - pompous (k)nitwit, perhaps?)

What angotja refers to is actions that can be described as either self
regarding (doesn't harm or deleteriously affect anyone else)or other
regarding (does harm others), and there is no flaw in the statement tha
laws should not be passed to restrict self-regarding actions. However
laws that are paternalistic interventions are enacted and th
justification required for their enactment is based on the costs born
by society

If we are to have such paternalistic restrictions placed on our sel
regarding freedoms then we should feel entitled to question an
challenge the claimed justifications for it; on the basis of equity w
can charge that an arbitrary subset of the population should not b
singled out for special attention while other subsets of th
population - which are also subject to the same affliction - aren'
subject to the same legislative treatment - that is discrimination an
persecution. And of course there's the very pertinent question as t
whether the prophylactic is effective as per the claims - or is
placebo, a comforting illusion, a palliative for anxiety and fea
whipped up by business enterprise in search of a market to prey upo
to sell their product

Roge


-

Skip wrote:

I won't engage in this particular flame-war), [but] I
can point out that beef brains sell for what -- $4 to $5 a pound? Is this
what yours are worth :-)


IOW, "I won't discuss this. I'm just going to make a nonsensical crack
in favor of my point of view, and leave."

Not very impressive.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Skip wrote:
...At the risk of provoking a religious war (there are pro- and anti-
helmet camps. I won't engage in this particular flame-war), I can point
out that beef brains sell for what -- $4 to $5 a pound? Is this what
yours are worth :-)
- Skip



What? Dear Skip's statement is more than slightly slim on cognitive
content and it appears Skip seems to think that a condescending swipe is
a satisfactory substitute for cogent reasoning.

Responding in kind I would suggest that the intellectual level of his
swipe is pretty much what one would expect from someone with the brain
of a bovine.

Again and again we seem to come up against "minds" that are impervious
to reason and are stubbornly oblivious to counter-argument.

What part of the statement: "helmets don't afford any significant
protection" are people not able to understand?

If we want to follow Skip's example of insulting our opponents
intelligence then two can play at that game - but that's playng the game
according to the rules of a beef brain.

Roger



--

Sittingduck wrote:
RogerDodger wrote:
What part of the statement: "helmets don't afford any significant
protection" are people not able to understand?
Hmm, seems to me that if I was to ram my head into something, I would
much rather be wearing a helmet than not. Try telling the above
statement to football players. Or do you mean if you never land on your
head? I could see that being true if it were so.
--
6/11/2004
7:28 PM [GMT-8]



Interesting that in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
Argentina and many other countries the game of rugby - footbal is
played and helmets (like the type used in American gridiron) aren't
used or even considered, let alone recommended. The game of rugby is
a very physical and bruising contact sport (the injury costs are
huge). A type of soft headgear is worn by some players (and it is
entirely at their discretion as to whether to wear them). The type of
headgear used is recognised as not able to give any significant
protection against concussion or skull fracture (concussion occurs
occasionally but skull fractures are very rare, in this game) but it
does provide some protection against the development of cauliflour
ears (which look hideous).

I understand that gridiron helmets can cause neck injuries? There is
some research that has been conducted in this area - but that's a
side issue.

Roger



--