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

Peter Clinch wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this?

{DO WHAT?!?}

And why does everyone assume there must have been regular and
widespread head injury related caranage amongst cyclists before
helmets were widely available?

And why do you (and many other AHZs) over-snip your posts so no one knows to
what the heck you're replying?

Sorni wrote:

Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?

No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it
will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little
energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my doubts...

And I've hit my head on the ground a few times running and jumping
and cross country skiing too. Don't wear a helmet for those
either. Nor does anyone else I see.

Much slower speeds; much lower forces. (Not to mention much softer surface,
at least for XC skiing.)

XC ski does involve downhill, and negotiating them one can easily
reach speeds that are relevant to cycles. And the trees and rocks
along the trails are just as hard as the trees and rocks alongside
MTB trails and roads.

But again the case that typical cycle helmets are only built to
specifications where lower speeds are what you can expect them to
work at, and you still haven't taken that on board.

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/

Sorni wrote:

And why do you (and many other AHZs)

If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a
cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot"
territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind
is made up.

over-snip your posts so no one knows to
what the heck you're replying?

I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my
feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out
stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't
doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless.
But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot",
which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works.

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/

Peter Clinch wrote:
Sorni wrote:

Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?

No. Is your cycle helmet built to a specification that suggests it
will not merely undergo brittle failure and absorb very little
energy when it hits the ground at such velocities? I have my
doubts...

But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.

Peter Clinch wrote:
Sorni wrote:

And why do you (and many other AHZs)

If you look on my web pages you'll find pictures of me wearing a
cycle helmet, which hardly has me in "Anti Helmet Zealot"
territory. But why confuse yourself with mere facts, when you mind
is made up.

You've since mentioned -- many times -- your change of heart--- er, mind re.
lids.

over-snip your posts so no one knows to
what the heck you're replying?

I over-snipped the last one, granted. It's nothing to do with my
feelings on helmets, it's a general judgement call to snip out
stuff that's no longer useful to what I'm saying. If we weren't
doing that posts would get very very long and accordingly useless.
But you want to make it about me being an "Anti Helmet Zealot",
which kinda shows how your "reasoning" works.

I didn't say it had anything to do with helmets; just a trend I've noticed.

I believe in and practice trimming as much as anyone. I just try to do it
so as to leave the context in tact for the first-time reader of a post.

One will note, of course, that you DELETED the reference to WHAT YOU DELETED
in the first place! Good form, that :-D

"MykalCrooks" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
news
"GaryG" wrote in message
...

...But I never hit my head harder than a knock because I
knew I could be killed if I did and I rode so that crashes weren't so bad
that I couldn't control my fall.

Why does everyone pretend that it isn't possible to do this? Why are you
pretending that you are unable to control your mountain bike in such a
manner that you don't risk your life?


Because not everyone rides as slowly as you?

Well, you're really the man. How many races have you finished first in? Or
are you one of those local club guys who rides really fast so that he can
beat in the girls to show what a man he is?

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
Peter Clinch wrote:
MykalCrooks wrote:

Thus, over the decades, I've a
demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it.

And so I wear a helmet.

Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of
kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a
helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly?

Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?

A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy into
the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your head. Turning
around fast and hitting your head can exceed this speed. In fact, one of the
larger sources of fatal head injuries are accidents in the home.

I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head injuries and
bicycling isn't among them?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message
...
Peter Clinch wrote:
MykalCrooks wrote:

Thus, over the decades, I've a
demonstrated habit of banging my head on the ground. I admit it.

And so I wear a helmet.

Over the decades I've banged mine quite a lot on open doors of
kitchen cupboards. Drawn blood more than once. I don't wear a
helmet to do the cooking, does that make me silly?

Do you fly around your kitchen at 25, 35, 45 mph?

A helmet cannot mediate ANY injury to the head that puts more energy
into the head than a 12.4 mph crash with ONLY the weight of your
head. Turning around fast and hitting your head can exceed this
speed. In fact, one of the larger sources of fatal head injuries are
accidents in the home.
I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere
but on a bicycle when you can list all of the major sources of head
injuries and bicycling isn't among them?

Sigh. If I fall while descending a steep mountain road, I'd like a helmet
between my SKIDDING skull and the pavement. If I slam into a wall head
first at 40+ mph, well, I'd still like to at least have one on but I know it
won't save my life or brain function.

(And yes, if I get shot in the chest, I might as well have SOMETHING in the
way of the bullet, even if it doesn't save me. At least my corpse won't be
found naked.)

Per Tom Kunich:
I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
bicycle

One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading.

Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a
curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of
acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so
the object doesn't cave in your skull.
--
PeteCresswell

Peter Clinch wrote:
Sorni wrote:

But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.

Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or
so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up
means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since,
say, 1985?

Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies and
stats.

Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
FILED.

Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see
they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Never mind, of course,
that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
without the lid.

I'll take the protection, thanks. You certainly don't have to.