helmet

On Oct 27, 10:55*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:56*am, SMS wrote:



If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
evidence to support their position then they would use it.

:-) *Says the poster so notorious for alluding to phantom or
irrelevant numbers, but almost never providing proper citations or
links!

SMS, you're a treasure!

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski - the master of strawmen and straw arguments!
You are hilarious! Perpetually ignorant, but hilarious!
DR

On Oct 26, 11:16*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27
+1100 the perfect time to write:









On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
beaten by increases in effective size.
It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.

As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
larger size increases the likelihood.

Sure, maybe on a tree branch, but when you're pile-driving in to the
pavement, 25mm of foam doesn't increase the likelihood of hitting the
pavement, unless you are capable of Matrix-like stop-motion falling.
You're gonna hit the pavement. With other falls, the size and mass
really makes no significant difference. See e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o
You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
on jungle gyms, etc. But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Oct 27, 2:50*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
*But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

Do you think there's a way we could get helmet promoters to restrict
their efforts to those who will be riding competitively, or in reduced-
traction environments?

That would be a great improvement over the current "NEVER ride your
bike without a helmet" schtick.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 27, 12:18 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

Do you think there's a way we could get helmet promoters to restrict
their efforts to those who will be riding competitively, or in reduced-
traction environments?


.... or at least *emphasize* that sort of thing.

That would be a great improvement over the current "NEVER ride your
bike without a helmet" schtick.


Yep.

Hey, you want to help make things better? I hear Ohio is *the*
pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. I know we can
count on you to help make it happen. (Pull it off and you truly
*will* be our hero.)

I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.

That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent

head impact.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

we did falling in HS gym with Sabatini

valuable valuable...

I find hair under a rolled up nylon ski balclava protects

the saw about entanglements in construction ARE EXPLETIVE DELETED CONTRUCTION not cycling

off course cycling rates fall....NO ONE ALL HAVE ON HAND HELMETS...seriously there's a lotta ninnyism herein.

On Oct 27, 2:50*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012
11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:









On Oct 26, 11:16*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
beaten by increases in effective size.
It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.

As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
larger size increases the likelihood.

Sure, maybe on a tree branch,

Or a truck mirror.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *but when you're pile-driving in to the
pavement, 25mm of foam doesn't increase the likelihood of hitting the
pavement, unless you are capable of Matrix-like stop-motion falling.
You're gonna hit the pavement.

Nothing so fancy, just knowing how to fall, which was something most
kids learned at a basic level pretty early until the last couple of
decades.
You can protect your head pretty effectively by falling properly -
think of a sport that involves falling, like Judo - most of the
participants spend the majority of their time in the early stages
simply learning how to fall without injury.
No Matrix cinematography tricks required.

When I fall, I generally have enough time in the air to check my
Facebook page and send a few text messages . . . then I plan my re-
entry. Let's see, half-gainer, right full twisting layout and
voila . . . on to my feet crouched down in a ninja pose! Thank you
Wachowski brothers (sisters)!

The reality is that I'm usually riding through a wet corner and whap!
I'm down (and now in my old and decrepit state, I creep through wet
turns). Most crashes on the road don't give you time to think about
anything. Some race crashes have long wind-ups, and mountain biking
wipe-outs can happen at slow speeds, but a lot of stuff on the road
just happens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmx9J1jwAo You can be
Mary Lou Retton, but you're goin' down -- and the deal is that you can
"miss" your head with the initial fall and then slide in to a curb or
one of those stupid dangerous metal guard rails.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *With other falls, the size and mass
really makes no significant difference. *See e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o
You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
on jungle gyms, etc. *But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.
That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent
head impact.

Yes, shoulder injury is definitely more prevalent than brain injury --
at least the type of brain injury that is preventable with a helmet,
i.e. skull fracture and focal brain injury. My three closest riding
companions had the following injuries this year: (1) fractured AC
joint with distal acromion resection, (2) fractured wrist (radius) and
(3) AC separation with deep hip bruising and facial injury. (1) and
(3) also had head impacts as well, but I don't think any LOC. (2) and
(3) were mountain bike injuries, one in at DH nationals. (1) got hit
by a car. (1) was pretty healed up by the beginning of summer, so we
put in a lot of miles in an effort to get in shape to beat (3). (2)
was always kicking my butt, so I enjoyed riding with him in the
recovery phase and kicking his butt for once -- actually, I knew I
could kick his butt but didn't because I can't face the agonizing pay
back when he gets in to shape.

-- Jay Beattie.

a widespread problem relative to my unanswered question atop this thread...no feedback here

there's one

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&...r: 8,s:0,i:96

On Oct 27, 4:11 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:



Jay Beattie considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012
11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Oct 26, 11:16 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
beaten by increases in effective size.
It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.

As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
larger size increases the likelihood.

Sure, maybe on a tree branch,

Or a truck mirror.

but when you're pile-driving in to the
pavement, 25mm of foam doesn't increase the likelihood of hitting the
pavement, unless you are capable of Matrix-like stop-motion falling.
You're gonna hit the pavement.

Nothing so fancy, just knowing how to fall, which was something most
kids learned at a basic level pretty early until the last couple of
decades.
You can protect your head pretty effectively by falling properly -
think of a sport that involves falling, like Judo - most of the
participants spend the majority of their time in the early stages
simply learning how to fall without injury.
No Matrix cinematography tricks required.

So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.)

But crashes are, by nature, unpredictable events. That's what the
helmet is all about. You don't *need* it for riding, and as you say,
you don't even *need* it when you crash. (You might be glad you had
it on, though; but you won't really know, will you. Hence our
conundrum about whether or not they work, and lots of mocking people
who said theirs did. I can tell you that I can't ever recall
regretting that I was wearing one.)


When I fall, I generally have enough time in the air to check my
Facebook page and send a few text messages . . . then I plan my re-
entry. Let's see, half-gainer, right full twisting layout and
voila . . . on to my feet crouched down in a ninja pose! Thank you
Wachowski brothers (sisters)!

The reality is that I'm usually riding through a wet corner and whap!
I'm down (and now in my old and decrepit state, I creep through wet
turns).

+1 (both things)

Most crashes on the road don't give you time to think about
anything. Some race crashes have long wind-ups, and mountain biking
wipe-outs can happen at slow speeds, but a lot of stuff on the road
just happens.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmx9J1jwAo You can be
Mary Lou Retton, but you're goin' down -- and the deal is that you can
"miss" your head with the initial fall and then slide in to a curb or
one of those stupid dangerous metal guard rails.


With other falls, the size and mass
really makes no significant difference. See e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o
You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
on jungle gyms, etc. But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.



I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.
That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent
head impact.

Yes, shoulder injury is definitely more prevalent than brain injury --
at least the type of brain injury that is preventable with a helmet,
i.e. skull fracture and focal brain injury. My three closest riding
companions had the following injuries this year: (1) fractured AC
joint with distal acromion resection, (2) fractured wrist (radius) and
(3) AC separation with deep hip bruising and facial injury. (1) and
(3) also had head impacts as well, but I don't think any LOC. (2) and
(3) were mountain bike injuries, one in at DH nationals. (1) got hit
by a car. (1) was pretty healed up by the beginning of summer, so we
put in a lot of miles in an effort to get in shape to beat (3). (2)
was always kicking my butt, so I enjoyed riding with him in the
recovery phase and kicking his butt for once -- actually, I knew I
could kick his butt but didn't because I can't face the agonizing pay
back when he gets in to shape.


Collarbone is the only bone I've ever broken. I was on the last lap
of a long motorcycle race, making a balls-to-the-wall last-ditch hail-
mary attempt to win on the outside of the right-hand turn. Highsided,
upended and came down on my left shoulder. The thing is, I guess I
was still attached to the (motor)bike, and it pile-drove it's mass
through me and my shoulder on its way to earth. It really hurt.
(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

It really hurt.

(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

yeah I got that with a heavy FM receiver right thru muh loweer lip.

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.

?

On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll wrote:
It really hurt.



(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

yeah I got that with a heavy FM receiver right thru muh loweer lip.

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.

?

Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there
(use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the
rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never
think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it
as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to
prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it
has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't
control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the
helmet.

I routinely wear my helmet for commuting, because it's a long trip,
making the overhead (ha, ha) of dealing with it small; exposure is
going to be extensive; and I use the brim to shield my eyes from
glare. I usually don't wear it close to home bopping around on my
bouncy, flouncy whjeelie bike (except for that one time I was setting
out to attempt some Evel Kneivel thing).

I tend to ride with more abandon on the whjeelie bike. Sure I get
downright radical to break the monotony of commuting, and *maybe* I'd
consciously tone some of it down a bit if I was bareheaded, but that's
only part of a total stance of due caution. I do *not* count on a
helmet to prevent any injury, but it would be stupid to think that it
can't.

The helmet may actually be part of a total precautionary stance that
*does* reduce chances of a crash. Sounds contrary to conventional
wisdom, I know; but I've reflected deeply on this, and I honestly
think I have a pretty healthy grip on affairs. The lapses are
probably more likely when I'm carefree, but by the same token I ride
hardest when my blood is really pumping and I'm hauling ass (standard
commuting). I won't discount the risk compensation phenomenon, but
nor do I ever feel the least bit like, "What the hell, I've got a
helmet on" (except maybe riding through light, low hanging foliage -
tactile engagement of which is kind of a thrill).