Should I wear a helmet?

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:50:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
I can't help but notice that the postings from cyclingforums contain
very, very little in the way of intelligence. Almost every one exhibits
sixth-grade thinking levels. Nobody seems to have read any of the
existing thread, let alone any of the references that have been supplied.

Is there a chance that cyclingforums has some sort of IQ limit in place?
That is, if you're too smart, do they keep you from posting?

It's the nature of the beast. If you're too smart, you use a
real newsreader, or at least google.

I suspect that those users don't even realize that these
messages exist anywhere other than at cyclingforums.com.

Have you noticed that they rarely, if ever, reply to any of our
replies to them?
--
Rick Onanian

On 8 Oct 2003 21:49:45 -0700, (Jeff Starr)
wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote in message . ..

Well, up until today, it had been a toss up, for the most moronic
post. No more, we have a winner! Without question dfwx's two posts
take the prize. Cell phone, large headphones, and hardhat. He worries
about looking like a dork, he obviously doesn't worry about acting
like one. Man, that is some funny stuff.
Life is Good!
Jeff

Hey! Careful with those attribution lines, top-poster!
The proper attribution line for the moron is below:
On 9 Oct 2003 04:50:41 +0950, dfwx
wrote:
Hey, I'm in Fort Worth too. I do not have a helmet and they do not look
like they would help anything - maybe even add a greater risk of the
neck getting twisted. What would seem more useful would be knee, elbow
and hand pads. I went down (just a stupid thing on my part) and landed
on very rough concrete (the kid with the big rocks in it mixed with
asphalt) on my hands and a knee. One of my hands 3 weeks later is still
very sore and just getting over the knee pain. For how the helmets are
designed they do not look like they would do much good anyway, but could
be wrong. They do look really dorky. I do wear a cap, though and have
started wearing fingerless "weightlifter" gloves with the padding on the
inside of the hands in case I fall again. (I was talking a cell phone
with one hand and had to hit the brakes faster than I could my other
hand back to the handle bar and down I went. Only going maybe 5 mph -
but it really hurt...) Mark

Well, for all you anti-helmetites, here's your guy, only a half hour
after I posted a suggestion that any puppetry via cyclingforums.com
is done by anti-helmetites. Unlike those with whom I've discussed
helmets here lately, he wants to wear knee and elbow pads.

And if all that isn't enough, he actually ADMITS to not only talking
on a cell phone while riding, but improperly braking too...yikes.

Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...
Paul_MCMLIX wrote:

I don't think you should bother with a helmet. The mere fact that you
have asked this question shows that a good smack in the head won't do
you any real harm.

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

I can't help but notice that the postings from cyclingforums contain
very, very little in the way of intelligence. Almost every one exhibits
sixth-grade thinking levels. Nobody seems to have read any of the
existing thread, let alone any of the references that have been supplied.

Is there a chance that cyclingforums has some sort of IQ limit in place?
That is, if you're too smart, do they keep you from posting?

Dear Frank,

No, there seem to be no restrictions on posting, not for
impatience, rudeness, irritability, shooting from the hip,
ignorance, arrogance . . .

.. . . or even thinly veiled self-adulation.

Thank heavens that you and I are free of such failings!

How unfortunate everyone else must be!

Modestly,

Carl Fogel

David Damerell wrote in message ...
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can't help but notice that the postings from cyclingforums contain
very, very little in the way of intelligence. Almost every one exhibits
sixth-grade thinking levels.

That is surely because most of them are sockpuppets for one particular
person. Several of them posted with the same .signature before I pointed
this out, for example.

Dear David,

Eternal vigilance is the price of . . . Well, it must be
the price of something--happiness?

Watch the skies!

Carl Fogel

Rick Onanian wrote in message
Ladder climbing is, IME, an activity to which a helmet offers
much less than it does to bicycling.

I'm sorry if I was not clear -- I didn't mean helmets for ladders but
protective gear more generally. I would think that some sort of
neck/back protection would be useful in ladder climbing even over
grass for the very rare occurences in which things got out of control.
In much the same way a helmet is useful in cycling for the very rare
occurences when one hits one's head hard.

Your details and defenses about how you use a ladder over grass, with
a good grip, etc, while cycling is more hectic are examples of the
contrivances you bring to this discussion. The truth is you, on the
ladder, are doing something which you have experience in and a lot of
control over, but not complete control. Which describes cycling as
well for a careful and experienced rider. And yet for one activitly
(the ladder) neck or back protection or whateveer is unimportant,
while for another it is vital. Which makes little or no sense.

JT

Rick Onanian wrote in message . ..

In bicycling, the only reason I ride is for excitement. There
is nowhere I need to go where bicycling is a transportation
option that fits my life and needs. As such, I push my top
speed, and I carve curves with much zeal.

How would you ride if you weren't wearing a helmet?

- Frank Krygowski

On 9 Oct 2003 13:34:54 -0700, (John Forrest
Tomlinson) wrote:
Your details and defenses about how you use a ladder over grass, with
a good grip, etc, while cycling is more hectic are examples of the
contrivances you bring to this discussion. The truth is you, on the
ladder, are doing something which you have experience in and a lot of
control over, but not complete control. Which describes cycling as
well for a careful and experienced rider. And yet for one activitly

Even with experience, there are many more factor
beyond your control on a bicycle than on a ladder, unless
you're in a velodrome with few other cyclists.

(the ladder) neck or back protection or whateveer is unimportant,
while for another it is vital. Which makes little or no sense.

I do not believe a helmet is vital to cycling. However, given
how easy it is to wear one, it's worth it to me, and to many
others who ask. If they have to ask, than they are better
served by conventional safety caution until they can decide
for themselves.

If a helmet was as difficult to deal with as neck/back
protection, then I would never wear it. Even if I agreed that
protection was necessary for climbing a ladder, and I don't,
there would be these issues:
- While bicycling, that's all I do for hours at a time.
-- While ladder-climbing, I do it and then have to work
- A helmet is cheap and comfortable
-- Neck and back protection is expensive and uncomfortable
- A helmet is easy to put on and take off
-- Neck/back protection would not be so easy

JT
--
Rick Onanian

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
. uk...
(John Forrest Tomlinson) writes:

roadgoat wrote in message
...
Riders without helmets are called organ donors in my riding
circle.

This attitude is so tiresome. You're implying that cycling is so
dangerous that without a helmet a rider will be killed. Which is
bull**** and anti-cycling. In truth, a tiny fraction of riders who
ride without helmets will be killed.

... and on the available statistical evidence, a slightly larger
proportion of those who ride _with_ helmets will be killed. Counter
intuitive, I know, but allegedly true. In particular there's evidence
that helmet wearers are more likely than non wearers to suffer diffuse
axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most
common brain injuries sustained by road crash victims that result in
death or chronic intellectual disablement.

What evidence . . . the URL says that "some doctors" are concerned that
linear forces (which helmets admittedly mitigate) may be translated by a
helment into "rotational" forces which will cause rotational injuries,
etc., etc. That's just speculation. Imagine doing a head plant on
cement without a helmet. Your head is driven into the concrete and then
snaps-back and rotates. With a helmet, you may avoid skull fracture,
perhaps depressed skull fracture and epidural hematoma (direct injuries
which helmets mitigate) -- but you may get somewhat more rotation (who
knows). The increased rotational injury probably is tiny compared to
the decrease in direct injuries such as a skull fracture. I would like
to see some scientific support -- and not a throw away comment on an
anti-helmet web-site, for the proposition that helmets increase
morbidity. -- Jay Beattie.

On 9 Oct 2003 13:52:57 -0700, (Frank Krygowski)
wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote in message . ..
In bicycling, the only reason I ride is for excitement. There
is nowhere I need to go where bicycling is a transportation
option that fits my life and needs. As such, I push my top
speed, and I carve curves with much zeal.

Keep in mind that the above quote is out of context.
The context was to compare cycling to automotive
driving; and my point was that cycling is done much
closer to the edge of one's ability than driving usually is.

How would you ride if you weren't wearing a helmet?

I would ride the same way. I'm not scared to ride
without a helmet; I simply feel that a helmet's pros
outweigh it's cons, and that people who ask are
best served by the traditional safety precaution
of wearing one until they decide for themselves.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Rick Onanian

"dfwx" wrote in message
...
snip

I don't think the helmet question is that simple, actually. Who wears
a
helmet in a car?

Nobody, because cars have occupant restraint systems, airbags, padded
dashboards, collaping steering columns, reinforced roofs, ABS, etc.,
etc. There is no equivalent protection on a bike. The issue is risk
reduction, not risk elimination. No mode of conveyance is absolutely
safe, and no one expects it to be -- except for a few litigants hoping
to make a buck. Motorists are required to buckle their seatbelts and
drive cars with every safety device known to human kind. Bicyclists
don't have to do anything to reduce the risk of injury.


Also, I would guess that the incidence of head injury in automobiles is
only a tiny fraction of what it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. I worked
ambulance throughout the 70s, and did plenty of calls involving cars
from the 50s and 60s. Metal dashes, non-collapsing steering columns, no
seat belts, no safety glass. It was a blood bath. Highway 17, for you
S.C. Valley fans. -- Jay Beattie.