You Still Don't Want to Wear a Helmet??

wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:18 pm, landotter wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:59 pm, " wrote:



On Mar 31, 8:24 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 31, 4:22 am, " wrote:

A few things to consider:

- Safe cycling is not a this or that, it's doing all the things I
can do to make a safe pass time even safer. I have other things I
do in this world beside riding a bike.. Whether "riding is well"
is enough is a personal decision, apparently it is enough for
you. For me, over the period of say 20 or 30 years in the saddle
and hundred thousand miles I know some stuff just happens, parts
fail prematurely, unexpectedly, I make little mistakes, I even
make big mistakes. To assume I am perfect in maintaining my bike
or judging every situation, that would be a big mistake...

- I am not distracted from safe cycling by wearing a helmet. A
helmet does not prevent me from stopping at stop signs, obeying
traffic lights, positioning myself properly in the lane, scanning
for traffic and all the other things one does...

- Clearly a helmet can reduce the impact to the head if one falls
and bangs one head on the pavement. This is basic materials
engineering. It's the old F = ma things and the W= F x D and KE =
1/.2 MV^2... That stuff really does work.

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? You (and everyone
else) also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs,
while climbing ladders, while driving in cars. And despite your
slower speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and
airbags, despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as
much risk of serious head injury during those activities as when
riding a bike.

You may doubt that. Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour
and per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. So why
disparage cycling?

The second problem is this: You say "clearly a helmet can reduce
the impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." But the
most robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that
statement, at least as far as truly serious head injuries.
Citations to refereed papers and large population data have been
posted many, many times, but here's a casual article that points
out the problem with assuming helmets must
work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a
largely imaginary problem. And it's not being tried for the far
more common (and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to
have a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a
deformable shell is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? Well this is a cycling
newgroup... In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Jon Isaacs

Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically
dangerous. Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of
righteousness for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling
safer or more enjoyable.

I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...

And thus the enlightened, elite, oh-so-tolerant "intellectual" AHZs drive
away another person guilty of merely expressing his or her opinion.

Bill "way to go, Crank 'n Rat" S.

In article ,
" writes:
On Mar 31, 5:18*pm, landotter wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:59*pm, " wrote:



On Mar 31, 8:24*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 31, 4:22*am, " wrote:

A few things to consider:

- Safe cycling is not a this or that, it's doing all the things I can
do to make a safe pass time even safer. *I have other things I do in
this world beside riding a bike.. *Whether "riding is well" is enough
is a personal decision, apparently it is enough for you. *For me, over
the period of say *20 or 30 years in the saddle and hundred thousand
miles I know some stuff just happens, parts fail prematurely,
unexpectedly, I make little mistakes, I even make big mistakes. *To
assume I am perfect in maintaining my bike or judging every situation,
that would be a big mistake...

- I am not distracted from safe cycling by wearing a helmet. *A helmet
does not prevent me from stopping at stop signs, obeying traffic
lights, positioning myself properly in the lane, scanning for traffic
and all the other things one does...

- Clearly a helmet can reduce the impact to the head if one falls and
bangs one head on the pavement. *This is basic materials engineering.
It's the old F = ma things and the W= F x D and KE = 1/.2 MV^2...
That stuff really does work.

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? *You (and everyone else)
also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs, while
climbing ladders, while driving in cars. *And despite your slower
speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and airbags,
despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as much risk of
serious head injury during those activities as when riding a bike.

You may doubt that. *Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. *But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. *Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour and
per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. *So why disparage
cycling?

The second problem is this: *You say "clearly a helmet can reduce the
impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." *But the most
robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that statement,
at least as far as truly serious head injuries. *Citations to refereed
papers and large population data have been posted many, many times,
but here's a casual article that points out the problem with assuming
helmets must work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a largely
imaginary problem. *And it's not being tried for the far more common
(and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. *I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. *However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

*I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to have
a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a deformable shell
is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? *Well this is a cycling
newgroup... *In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. *You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. * My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. *Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Jon Isaacs

Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically dangerous.
Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of righteousness
for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling safer or more
enjoyable.
I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.
Jon Isaacs
Oh well...

Well, y'know all of us riders, myself included, can get
passionate about certain matters (like helmets,) and
sometimes our passions can inspire us to become more
expressive than we intend. And on-line communication
is more difficult than person-to-person, 'cuz nuance
is next to impossible on-line.

Landotter mentions the existance of guilting-out
non-helmeted riders, and indeed such tedious
officiousness does exist -- I suspect not out of
concern for the safety of fellow riders, but just
to be finger-wagging scolds who don't want anybody
to colour over the lines.

I /know/ that you are motivated by care for your
fellow riders. While you & I may disagree on
certain matters, I respect your opinions, knowledge
and experience, and consider your, or anyone else's
input. Please don't get too disgusted. Stick around.

So ya believe in magic, eh? :-) :-) :-)

Me, too.


cheers,
Tom

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

On Mar 31, 8:48*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:18*pm, landotter wrote:



On Mar 31, 6:59*pm, " wrote:

On Mar 31, 8:24*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 31, 4:22*am, " wrote:

A few things to consider:

- Safe cycling is not a this or that, it's doing all the things I can
do to make a safe pass time even safer. *I have other things I do in
this world beside riding a bike.. *Whether "riding is well" is enough
is a personal decision, apparently it is enough for you. *For me, over
the period of say *20 or 30 years in the saddle and hundred thousand
miles I know some stuff just happens, parts fail prematurely,
unexpectedly, I make little mistakes, I even make big mistakes. *To
assume I am perfect in maintaining my bike or judging every situation,
that would be a big mistake...

- I am not distracted from safe cycling by wearing a helmet. *A helmet
does not prevent me from stopping at stop signs, obeying traffic
lights, positioning myself properly in the lane, scanning for traffic
and all the other things one does...

- Clearly a helmet can reduce the impact to the head if one falls and
bangs one head on the pavement. *This is basic materials engineering.
It's the old F = ma things and the W= F x D and KE = 1/.2 MV^2...
That stuff really does work.

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? *You (and everyone else)
also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs, while
climbing ladders, while driving in cars. *And despite your slower
speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and airbags,
despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as much risk of
serious head injury during those activities as when riding a bike.

You may doubt that. *Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. *But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. *Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour and
per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. *So why disparage
cycling?

The second problem is this: *You say "clearly a helmet can reduce the
impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." *But the most
robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that statement,
at least as far as truly serious head injuries. *Citations to refereed
papers and large population data have been posted many, many times,
but here's a casual article that points out the problem with assuming
helmets must work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a largely
imaginary problem. *And it's not being tried for the far more common
(and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. *I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. *However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

*I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to have
a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a deformable shell
is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? *Well this is a cycling
newgroup... *In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. *You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. * My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. *Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Jon Isaacs

Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically dangerous.
Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of righteousness
for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling safer or more
enjoyable.

I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. *I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...

Actually, Jon, we've had many fewer helmet wars than we used to. I
think that's partly because the evangelizing has decreased.

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Mar 31, 8:48*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:18*pm, landotter wrote:



On Mar 31, 6:59*pm, " wrote:

On Mar 31, 8:24*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 31, 4:22*am, " wrote:

A few things to consider:

- Safe cycling is not a this or that, it's doing all the things I can
do to make a safe pass time even safer. *I have other things I do in
this world beside riding a bike.. *Whether "riding is well" is enough
is a personal decision, apparently it is enough for you. *For me, over
the period of say *20 or 30 years in the saddle and hundred thousand
miles I know some stuff just happens, parts fail prematurely,
unexpectedly, I make little mistakes, I even make big mistakes. *To
assume I am perfect in maintaining my bike or judging every situation,
that would be a big mistake...

- I am not distracted from safe cycling by wearing a helmet. *A helmet
does not prevent me from stopping at stop signs, obeying traffic
lights, positioning myself properly in the lane, scanning for traffic
and all the other things one does...

- Clearly a helmet can reduce the impact to the head if one falls and
bangs one head on the pavement. *This is basic materials engineering.
It's the old F = ma things and the W= F x D and KE = 1/.2 MV^2...
That stuff really does work.

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? *You (and everyone else)
also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs, while
climbing ladders, while driving in cars. *And despite your slower
speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and airbags,
despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as much risk of
serious head injury during those activities as when riding a bike.

You may doubt that. *Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. *But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. *Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour and
per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. *So why disparage
cycling?

The second problem is this: *You say "clearly a helmet can reduce the
impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." *But the most
robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that statement,
at least as far as truly serious head injuries. *Citations to refereed
papers and large population data have been posted many, many times,
but here's a casual article that points out the problem with assuming
helmets must work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a largely
imaginary problem. *And it's not being tried for the far more common
(and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. *I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. *However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

*I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to have
a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a deformable shell
is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? *Well this is a cycling
newgroup... *In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. *You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. * My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. *Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Jon Isaacs

Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically dangerous.
Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of righteousness
for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling safer or more
enjoyable.

I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. *I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...
Actually, Jon, we've had many fewer helmet wars than we used to. I
think that's partly because the evangelizing has decreased.

It's because we've just been through Winter,
and fewer people were riding. :-)

Actually it's still winter in a lot of places,
including here. It just doesn't wanna let go
and let Spring spring into action. Grrrrr ...
Stupid climate ...

But at least my local streets aren't snow/ice-bound,
so I can ride around. I shouldn't complain.

But I might anyway.

A li'l complainin' sometimes feels good, if not
overdone.

Might even get a little tea & sympathy out of it.

My TV died, and I'm missing the Vancouver/Minnesota
hockey game tonight. I could turn on the radio,
but that would just jinx the game. I think I'll
just soak in the bathtub and listen to some Alice
Coletrane instead. Without wearing a helmet.

Life ain't so bad.


cheers,
Tom

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

On Mar 31, 6:59*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:24*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? *You (and everyone else)
also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs, while
climbing ladders, while driving in cars. *And despite your slower
speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and airbags,
despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as much risk of
serious head injury during those activities as when riding a bike.

You may doubt that. *Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. *But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. *Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour and
per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. *So why disparage
cycling?

The second problem is this: *You say "clearly a helmet can reduce the
impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." *But the most
robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that statement,
at least as far as truly serious head injuries. *Citations to refereed
papers and large population data have been posted many, many times,
but here's a casual article that points out the problem with assuming
helmets must work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a largely
imaginary problem. *And it's not being tried for the far more common
(and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. *I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. *However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

*I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to have
a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a deformable shell
is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? *Well this is a cycling
newgroup... *In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. *You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. * My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. *Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Hmm. I've been riding as an adult for about 35 years, and as a kid
for about 12 years before that, with just a short hiatus when I was a
car crazy college student. Granted, I've hardly ever fallen (almost
entirely mountain biking) but never had trouble preventing the serious
injuries you worry about.

More to the point, 5000 peds die per year in the US, mostly from head
injuries. Only about 750 cyclists die. Furthermore, Robinson's "Head
injuries and bicycle helmet laws" computed 0.34 head injury fatalities
for pedestrians, vs. 0.19 for cyclists. British data has reached
similar conclusions.

What you're doing is ignoring such data, and going with your WAG that
cycling is quite dangerous, more so than walking. You're valuing your
guess over data, which is usual for helmet advocates.

And you're doing the same thing regarding the efficacy of helmets.
You hint of unspecified "dynamic experiments" that tell you that
helmets work well. But you don't respond to items like the New York
Times article at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

As I said, other similar data has been cited many times. For example,
Scuffham's "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary
Helmet Use" documents the time when kids' helmet wearing jumped from
about 30% to 90% within less than three years, due to intense pre-MHL
publicity. (Teens and adults had similar sudden jumps in helmet
use.) Scuffham was looking at hospital records to document the
reduction in serious head injury this jump would surely show - but he
found no detectable benefit at all. [Complete cite on request,
although it's been given many times.]

If suddenly donning helmets by 90% of the kids (or 70% of teens, or
40% of adults) doesn't cause a reduction in head injuries, how can you
claim they really are effective?

ISTM that helmet promotion requires either ignorance of data,
purposely choosing blind faith over data, or deliberate marketing
dishonesty. I hope you're in the first category, and capable of
improvement.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 31, 11:44*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:59*pm, " wrote:



On Mar 31, 8:24*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? *You (and everyone else)
also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs, while
climbing ladders, while driving in cars. *And despite your slower
speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and airbags,
despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as much risk of
serious head injury during those activities as when riding a bike.

You may doubt that. *Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. *But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. *Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour and
per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. *So why disparage
cycling?

The second problem is this: *You say "clearly a helmet can reduce the
impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." *But the most
robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that statement,
at least as far as truly serious head injuries. *Citations to refereed
papers and large population data have been posted many, many times,
but here's a casual article that points out the problem with assuming
helmets must work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a largely
imaginary problem. *And it's not being tried for the far more common
(and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. *I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. *However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

*I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to have
a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a deformable shell
is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? *Well this is a cycling
newgroup... *In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. *You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. * My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. *Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Hmm. *I've been riding as an adult for about 35 years, and as a kid
for about 12 years before that, with just a short hiatus when I was a
car crazy college student. *Granted, I've hardly ever fallen (almost
entirely mountain biking) but never had trouble preventing the serious
injuries you worry about.

More to the point, 5000 peds die per year in the US, mostly from head
injuries. *Only about 750 cyclists die. *Furthermore, Robinson's "Head
injuries and bicycle helmet laws" computed 0.34 head injury fatalities
for pedestrians, vs. 0.19 for cyclists. *British data has reached
similar conclusions.

What you're doing is ignoring such data, and going with your WAG that
cycling is quite dangerous, more so than walking. *You're valuing your
guess over data, which is usual for helmet advocates.


Whaddaya expect a "concern troll" to do? Live in reality?

On Mar 31, 10:16*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:18 pm, landotter wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:59 pm, " wrote:

On Mar 31, 8:24 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 31, 4:22 am, " wrote:

A few things to consider:

- Safe cycling is not a this or that, it's doing all the things I
can do to make a safe pass time even safer. I have other things I
do in this world beside riding a bike.. Whether "riding is well"
is enough is a personal decision, apparently it is enough for
you. For me, over the period of say 20 or 30 years in the saddle
and hundred thousand miles I know some stuff just happens, parts
fail prematurely, unexpectedly, I make little mistakes, I even
make big mistakes. To assume I am perfect in maintaining my bike
or judging every situation, that would be a big mistake...

- I am not distracted from safe cycling by wearing a helmet. A
helmet does not prevent me from stopping at stop signs, obeying
traffic lights, positioning myself properly in the lane, scanning
for traffic and all the other things one does...

- Clearly a helmet can reduce the impact to the head if one falls
and bangs one head on the pavement. This is basic materials
engineering. It's the old F = ma things and the W= F x D and KE =
1/.2 MV^2... That stuff really does work.

There are at least two problems with what you write above.

First, why is all that restricted to cycling? You (and everyone
else) also make mistakes while walking, while descending stairs,
while climbing ladders, while driving in cars. And despite your
slower speed while walking, despite your car's seat belts and
airbags, despite your care when on a ladder, you're probably at as
much risk of serious head injury during those activities as when
riding a bike.

You may doubt that. Most people who haven't looked for data seem to
doubt it. But remember that fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities
in America are due to bicycling. Remember that there is respectable
data showing, for example, that pedestrians have a higher per hour
and per mile risk of serious head injury than cyclists. So why
disparage cycling?

The second problem is this: You say "clearly a helmet can reduce
the impact to the head ... that stuff really does work." But the
most robust data on the real-world effect of helmets belies that
statement, at least as far as truly serious head injuries.
Citations to refereed papers and large population data have been
posted many, many times, but here's a casual article that points
out the problem with assuming helmets must
work:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

We seem to have an ineffective solution being promoted for a
largely imaginary problem. And it's not being tried for the far
more common (and at least as risky) sources of head injury.

- As I said, wearing a helmet is a personal decision. I prefer to
have some protection if I fall.

... but only if you fall while riding a bike.

Yes, it is a personal decision. However, you should realize that
posting your reasons - or rationalizations - on a discussion group
does invite discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank:

Just a quick comment or two:

You seem to have two approaches:

- Helmets don't work so why wear one.

I have done enough dynamic experiments over the last 20 years to
have a pretty good sense that protecting ones head with a
deformable shell is a good way to protect it...

- Helmets do work so why not wear one when engaged in other
activities.

You asked why restrict this to cycling??? Well this is a cycling
newgroup... In a previous post you provided a good example of what
happens when one is walking or hiking. You made a mistake and fell
but were able to catch yourself with your hands and as you said,
avoided hitting your head with the possibility of causing a serious
injury. My experience is similar, the human has evolved to walk
successfully. Further personal experiences indicate that catching my
fall is not so easy when cycling,

Jon Isaacs

Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically
dangerous. Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of
righteousness for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling
safer or more enjoyable.
I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. *I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...

And thus the enlightened, elite, oh-so-tolerant "intellectual" AHZs drive
away another person guilty of merely expressing his or her opinion.


Dude, you believe that an imaginary sky jew bolsters your genocidal
fascism. Why don't you shut the **** up and send some helmets to the
orphans in Iraq you helped make, asshole. Then you can **** yourself!

wrote, On 3/31/2009 8:48 PM:
On Mar 31, 5:18 pm, landotter wrote:

snip
Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us that
understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look for
panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically dangerous.
Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of righteousness
for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling safer or more
enjoyable.


I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last 5
years so I stopped by to see. I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have respectful
discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...

Jon,
To be fair, you did enter into a helmet thread. Nothing has changed in
the last five years. This particular thread covered the same ground and
rehashed all the same arguments that all helmet threads on
rec.bicycles.misc eventually cover.

Even Don Quixote wore a helmet when tilting at windmills...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

Paul O wrote:
wrote, On 3/31/2009 8:48 PM:
On Mar 31, 5:18 pm, landotter wrote:

snip
Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us
that understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look
for panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically
dangerous. Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of
righteousness for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling
safer or more enjoyable.


I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last
5 years so I stopped by to see. I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have
respectful discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...

Jon,
To be fair, you did enter into a helmet thread.

How does that excuse being cursed at, insulted and personally attacked --
and for what, expressing an opinion?

Nothing has changed in
the last five years. This particular thread covered the same ground
and rehashed all the same arguments that all helmet threads on
rec.bicycles.misc eventually cover.

Something must be nagging at the AHZ contingent, else they wouldn't be so
abusive. I suspect they know they're flat wrong. Reminds me of polit----
err, never mind.

Even Don Quixote wore a helmet when tilting at windmills...

Smart move...but the choice to wear a lid isn't a phantom issue.

Bill "live and let ride (protected or not)" S.

Bill Sornson wrote, On 4/1/2009 1:38 PM:
Paul O wrote:

wrote, On 3/31/2009 8:48 PM:

On Mar 31, 5:18 pm, landotter wrote:


snip
Then wear your ****ing helmet and stop evangelizing. Those of us
that understand statistics also understand how stupid it is to look
for panacea in safety gear when an activity isn't statistically
dangerous. Bottom line is that helmet guilt has become a meme of
righteousness for busy bodies and serves to annoy--not make cycling
safer or more enjoyable.


I have wondered what had happened to rec.bicycles.misc over the last
5 years so I stopped by to see. I was hoping it had magically
transformed into a forum where reasonable people could have
respectful discussions but gosh, I guess that was a wild dream.

Jon Isaacs

Oh well...


Jon,
To be fair, you did enter into a helmet thread.


How does that excuse being cursed at, insulted and personally attacked --
and for what, expressing an opinion?


Nothing has changed in
the last five years. This particular thread covered the same ground
and rehashed all the same arguments that all helmet threads on
rec.bicycles.misc eventually cover.


Something must be nagging at the AHZ contingent, else they wouldn't be so
abusive. I suspect they know they're flat wrong. Reminds me of polit----
err, never mind.


Even Don Quixote wore a helmet when tilting at windmills...


Smart move...but the choice to wear a lid isn't a phantom issue.

Bill "live and let ride (protected or not)" S.



I'm not making any excuses. I wish everyone would play nice.

Just for the record, I always wear a helmet when I ride. I personally
think its a good idea. But I don't wish to defend or discuss my decision
in this forum.

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)